A specific phase of transcranial alternating current stimulation at the β frequency boosts repetitive paired-pulse TMS-induced plasticity

Different effects of I-wave periodicity repetitive TMS on motor cortex interhemispheric interaction

Background

Activity of the neural circuits in the human motor cortex can be probed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Changing TMS-induced current direction recruits different cortical neural circuits. I-wave periodicity repetitive TMS (iTMS) substantially modulates motor cortex excitability through neural plasticity, yet its effect on interhemispheric interaction remains unclear.

Objective

To explore the modulation of interhemispheric interaction by iTMS applied in different current directions.

Materials and Methods

Twenty right-handed healthy young volunteers (aged 27.5 ± 5.0 years) participated in this study with three visits. On each visit, iTMS in posterior-anterior/anterior-posterior direction (PA-/AP-iTMS) or sham-iTMS was applied to the right hemisphere, with corticospinal excitability and intracortical facilitation of the non-stimulated left hemisphere evaluated at four timepoints. Ipsilateral silent period was also measured at each timepoint probing interhemispheric inhibition (IHI).

Results

PA- and AP-iTMS potentiated cortical excitability concurrently in the stimulated right hemisphere. Corticospinal excitability of the non-stimulated left hemisphere increased 10 min after both PA- and AP-iTMS intervention, with a decrease in short-interval intracortical facilitation (SICF) observed in AP-iTMS only. Immediately after the intervention, PA-iTMS tilted the IHI balance toward inhibiting the non-stimulated hemisphere, while AP-iTMS shifted the balance toward the opposite direction.

Conclusions

Our findings provide systematic evidence on the plastic modulation of interhemispheric interaction by PA- and AP-iTMS. We show that iTMS induces an interhemispheric facilitatory effect, and that PA- and AP-iTMS differs in modulating interhemispheric inhibition.

Phase-dependent modulation of the vestibular-cerebellar network via combined alternating current stimulation influences human locomotion and posture

Background

Human locomotion induces rhythmic movements of the trunk and head. Vestibular signaling is relayed to multiple regions in the brainstem and cerebellum, and plays an essential role in maintaining head stability. However, how the vestibular-cerebellar network contributes to the rhythmic locomotor pattern in humans is unclear. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has been used to investigate the effects of the task-related network between stimulation regions in a phase-dependent manner. Here, we investigated the relationship between the vestibular system and the cerebellum during walking imagery using combined tACS over the left cerebellum and alternating current galvanic vestibular stimulation (AC-GVS).

Methods

In Experiment 1, we tested the effects of AC-GVS alone at around individual gait stride frequencies. In Experiment 2, we then determined the phase-specificity of combined stimulation at the gait frequency. Combined stimulation was applied at in-phase (0° phase lag) or anti-phase (180° phase lag) between the left vestibular and left cerebellar stimulation, and the sham stimulation. We evaluated the AC-GVS-induced periodic postural response during walking imagery or no-imagery using the peak oscillatory power on the angular velocity signals of the head in both experiments. In Experiment 2, we also examined the phase-locking value (PLV) between the periodic postural responses and the left AC-GVS signals to estimate entrainment of the postural response by AC-GVS.

Results

AC-GVS alone induced the periodic postural response in the yaw and roll axes, but no interactions with imagery walking were observed in Experiment 1 (p > 0.05). By contrast, combined in-phase stimulation increased yaw motion (0.345 ± 0.23) compared with sham (-0.044 ± 0.19) and anti-phase stimulation (-0.066 ± 0.18) during imaginary walking (in-phase vs. other conditions, imagery: p < 0.05; no-imagery: p ≥ 0.125). Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the yaw peak power of actual locomotion and in-phase stimulation in the imagery session (imagery: p = 0.041; no-imagery: p = 0.177). Meanwhile, we found no imagery-dependent effects in roll peak power or PLV, although in-phase stimulation enhanced roll motion and PLV in Experiment 2.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that combined stimulation can influence vestibular-cerebellar network activity, and modulate postural control and locomotion systems in a temporally sensitive manner. This novel combined tACS/AC-GVS stimulation approach may advance development of therapeutic applications.

After-Effects of Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation Are Differentially and Phase-Dependently Suppressed by α- and β-Frequency Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is known to produce excitatory after-effects over the primary motor cortex (M1). Recently, transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) at 10 Hz (α) and 20 Hz (β) have been shown to modulate M1 excitability in a phase-dependent manner. Therefore, we hypothesized that tACS would modulate the after-effects of iTBS depending on the stimulation frequency and phase. To test our hypothesis, we examined the effects of α- and β-tACS on iTBS using motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Eighteen and thirteen healthy participants were recruited for α and β tACS conditions, respectively. tACS electrodes were attached over the left M1 and Pz. iTBS over left M1 was performed concurrently with tACS. The first pulse of the triple-pulse burst of iTBS was controlled to match the peak (90°) or trough (270°) phase of the tACS. A sham tACS condition was used as a control in which iTBS was administered without tACS. Thus, each participant was tested in three conditions: the peak and trough of the tACS phases and sham tACS. As a result, MEPs were enhanced after iTBS without tACS (sham condition), as observed in previous studies. α-tACS suppressed iTBS effects at the peak phase but not at the trough phase, while β-tACS suppressed the effects at both phases. Thus, although both types of tACS inhibited the facilitatory effects of iTBS, only α-tACS did so in a phase-dependent manner. Phase-dependent inhibition by α-tACS is analogous to our previous finding in which α-tACS inhibited MEPs online at the peak condition. Conversely, β-tACS reduced the effects of iTBS irrespective of its phase. The coupling of brain oscillations and tACS rhythms is considered important in the generation of spike-timing-dependent plasticity. Additionally, the coupling of θ and γ oscillations is assumed to be important for iTBS induction through long-term potentiation (LTP). Therefore, excessive coupling between β oscillations induced by tACS and γ or θ oscillations induced by iTBS might disturb the coupling of θ and γ oscillations during iTBS. To conclude, the action of iTBS is differentially modulated by neuronal oscillations depending on whether α- or β-tACS is applied.