Chapter 16 Motor control in mirror movements: studies with transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mirror Movements in Acquired Neurological Disorders: A Mini-Review

Mirror movements (MMs) are specifically defined as involuntary movements occurring on one side of homologous muscles when performing unilateral movements with the contralateral limb. MMs have been considered a kind of soft neurological signs, and the persistence or reappearance of MMs in adults is usually pathologic. In addition to some congenital syndrome, MMs have been also described in age-related neurological diseases including pyramidal system diseases (e.g., stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and extrapyramidal disorders (e.g., Parkinson's disease, essential tremor). With the advances in instrumentation and detection means, subtle or subclinical MMs have been deeply studied. Furthermore, the underlying mechanism is also being further elucidated. In this mini-review, we firstly discuss the MM examination means, and then review the literature regarding MMs in individuals with acquired neurological disorders, in order to further understand the pathogenesis of MMs.

The corticospinal tract: Evolution, development, and human disorders

The corticospinal tract (CST) plays a major role in cortical control of spinal cord activity. In particular, it is the principal motor pathway for voluntary movements. Here, we discuss: (i) the anatomic evolution and development of the CST across mammalian species, focusing on its role in motor functions; (ii) the molecular mechanisms regulating corticospinal tract formation and guidance during mouse development; and (iii) human disorders associated with abnormal CST development. A comparison of CST anatomy and development across mammalian species first highlights important similarities. In particular, most CST axons cross the anatomical midline at the junction between the brainstem and spinal cord, forming the pyramidal decussation. Reorganization of the pattern of CST projections to the spinal cord during evolution led to improved motor skills. Studies of the molecular mechanisms involved in CST formation and guidance in mice have identified several factors that act synergistically to ensure proper formation of the CST at each step of development. Human CST developmental disorders can result in a reduction of the CST, or in guidance defects associated with abnormal CST anatomy. These latter disorders result in altered midline crossing at the pyramidal decussation or in the spinal cord, but spare the rest of the CST. Careful appraisal of clinical manifestations associated with CST malformations highlights the critical role of the CST in the lateralization of motor control. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Develop Neurobiol 77: 810-829, 2017.

Safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been used in both physiological studies and, more recently, the therapy of Parkinson's disease (PD). Prior TMS studies in healthy subjects and other patient populations demonstrate a slight risk of seizures and other adverse events. Our goal was to estimate these risks and document other safety concerns specific to PD patients.

METHODS

We performed an English-Language literature search through PudMed to review all TMS studies involving PD patients. We documented any seizures or other adverse events associated with these studies. Crude risks were calculated per subject and per session of TMS.

RESULTS

We identified 84 single pulse (spTMS) and/or paired-pulse (ppTMS) TMS studies involving 1091 patients and 77 repetitive TMS (rTMS) studies involving 1137 patients. Risk of adverse events was low in all protocols. spTMS and ppTMS risk per patient for any adverse event was 0.0018 (95% CI: 0.0002-0.0066) per patient and no seizures were encountered. Risk of an adverse event from rTMS was 0.040 (95% CI: 0.029-0.053) per patient and no seizures were reported. Other adverse events included transient headaches, scalp pain, tinnitus, nausea, increase in pre-existing pain, and muscle jerks. Transient worsening of Parkinsonian symptoms was noted in one study involving rTMS of the supplementary motor area (SMA).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that current TMS and rTMS protocols do not pose significant risks to PD patients. We would recommend that TMS users in this population follow the most recent safety guidelines but do not warrant additional precautions.

Investigating the cortical origins of motor overflow

Motor overflow refers to the involuntary movements which may accompany the production of voluntary movements. While overflow is not usually seen in the normal population, it does present in children and the elderly, as well as those suffering certain neurological dysfunctions. Advancements in methodology over the last decade have allowed for more convincing conclusions regarding the cortical origins of motor overflow. However, despite significant research, the exact mechanism underlying the production of motor overflow is still unclear. This review presents a more comprehensive conceptualization of the theories of motor overflow, which have often been only vaguely defined. Further, the major findings are explored in an attempt to differentiate the competing theories of motor overflow production. This exploration is done in the context of a range of neurological and psychiatric disorders, in order to elucidate the possible underlying mechanisms of overflow.

Involvement of the human dorsal premotor cortex in unimanual motor control: an interference approach using transcranial magnetic stimulation

Unilateral movements are enabled through a distributed network of motor cortical areas but the relative contribution from the parts of this network is largely unknown. Failure of this network potentially results in mirror activation of the primary motor cortex (M1) ipsilateral to the intended movement. Here we tested the role of the right dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC) in 11 healthy subjects by disrupting its activity with 20 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) whilst the subjects exerted a unilateral contraction of the left first dorsal interosseous (FDI). We found that disruption of right dPMC enhanced mirror activation of the ipsilateral left M1, as probed by motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude to the right FDI. This was not the case with sham rTMS, when rTMS was directed to the right M1, or with rTMS of the right dPMC but without contraction of the left FDI. Findings suggest that activity in the dPMC contributes to the suppression of mirror movements during intended unilateral movements.