1
|
Tan B, Chen J, Liu Y, Lin Q, Wang Y, Shi S, Ye Y, Che X. Differential analgesic effects of high-frequency or accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation of M1 on experimental tonic pain: Correlations with cortical activity changes assessed by TMS-EEG. Neurotherapeutics 2024; 21:e00451. [PMID: 39304439 PMCID: PMC11585887 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurot.2024.e00451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2024] [Revised: 09/08/2024] [Accepted: 09/08/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (AiTBS) has attracted much attention in the past few years as a new form of brain stimulation paradigm. However, it is unclear the relative efficacy of AiTBS on cortical excitability compared to conventional high-frequency rTMS. Using concurrent TMS and electroencephalogram (TMS-EEG), this study systematically compared the efficacy on cortical excitability and a typical clinical application (i.e. pain), between AiTBS with different intersession interval (ISIs) and 10-Hz rTMS. Participants received 10-Hz rTMS, AiTBS-15 (3 iTBS sessions with a 15-min ISI), AiTBS-50 (3 iTBS sessions with a 50-min ISI), or Sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex on four separate days. All four protocols included a total of 1800 pulses but with different session durations (10-Hz rTMS = 18, AiTBS-15 = 40, and AiTBS-50 = 110 min). AiTBS-50 and 10-Hz rTMS were more effective in pain reduction compared to AiTBS-15. Using single-pulse TMS-induced oscillation, our data revealed low gamma oscillation as a shared cortical excitability change across all three active rTMS protocols but demonstrated completely opposite directions. Changes in low gamma oscillation were further associated with changes in pain perception across the three active conditions. In contrast, a distinct pattern of TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) was revealed, with 10-Hz rTMS decreasing inhibitory N100 amplitude and AiTBS-15 reducing excitatory P60 amplitude. These changes in TEPs were also covarying with low gamma power changes. Sham stimulation indicated no significant effect on either cortical excitability or pain perception. These results are relevant only for provoked experimental pain, without being predictive for chronic pain, and revealed a change in low gamma oscillation, particularly around the very particular frequency of 40 Hz, shared between AiTBS and high-frequency rTMS. Conversely, cortical excitability (balance between excitation and inhibition) assessed by TEP recording was modulated differently by AiTBS and high-frequency rTMS paradigms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bolin Tan
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Jielin Chen
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Ying Liu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
| | - Qiuye Lin
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Ying Wang
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Shuyan Shi
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Yang Ye
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Xianwei Che
- Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schoisswohl S, Kanig C, Osnabruegge M, Agboada D, Langguth B, Rethwilm R, Hebel T, Abdelnaim MA, Mack W, Seiberl W, Kuder M, Schecklmann M. Monitoring Changes in TMS-Evoked EEG and EMG Activity During 1 Hz rTMS of the Healthy Motor Cortex. eNeuro 2024; 11:ENEURO.0309-23.2024. [PMID: 38565296 PMCID: PMC11015949 DOI: 10.1523/eneuro.0309-23.2024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Revised: 12/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique capable of inducing neuroplasticity as measured by changes in peripheral muscle electromyography (EMG) or electroencephalography (EEG) from pre-to-post stimulation. However, temporal courses of neuromodulation during ongoing rTMS are unclear. Monitoring cortical dynamics via TMS-evoked responses using EMG (motor-evoked potentials; MEPs) and EEG (transcranial-evoked potentials; TEPs) during rTMS might provide further essential insights into its mode of action - temporal course of potential modulations. The objective of this study was to first evaluate the validity of online rTMS-EEG and rTMS-EMG analyses, and second to scrutinize the temporal changes of TEPs and MEPs during rTMS. As rTMS is subject to high inter-individual effect variability, we aimed for single-subject analyses of EEG changes during rTMS. Ten healthy human participants were stimulated with 1,000 pulses of 1 Hz rTMS over the motor cortex, while EEG and EMG were recorded continuously. Validity of MEPs and TEPs measured during rTMS was assessed in sensor and source space. Electrophysiological changes during rTMS were evaluated with model fitting approaches on a group- and single-subject level. TEPs and MEPs appearance during rTMS was consistent with past findings of single pulse experiments. Heterogeneous temporal progressions, fluctuations or saturation effects of brain activity were observed during rTMS depending on the TEP component. Overall, global brain activity increased over the course of stimulation. Single-subject analysis revealed inter-individual temporal courses of global brain activity. The present findings are in favor of dose-response considerations and attempts in personalization of rTMS protocols.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan Schoisswohl
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Carolina Kanig
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Mirja Osnabruegge
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Desmond Agboada
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Berthold Langguth
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
| | - Roman Rethwilm
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Sport Science, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Tobias Hebel
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
| | - Mohamed A Abdelnaim
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Mack
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Seiberl
- Department of Human Sciences, Institute of Sport Science, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Manuel Kuder
- Department of Electrical Engineering, Universität der Bundeswehr München, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
| | - Martin Schecklmann
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cruciani A, Mancuso M, Sveva V, Maccarrone D, Todisco A, Motolese F, Santoro F, Pilato F, Spampinato DA, Rocchi L, Di Lazzaro V, Capone F. Using TMS-EEG to assess the effects of neuromodulation techniques: a narrative review. Front Hum Neurosci 2023; 17:1247104. [PMID: 37645690 PMCID: PMC10461063 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1247104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Over the past decades, among all the non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, those aiming for neuromodulatory protocols have gained special attention. The traditional neurophysiological outcome to estimate the neuromodulatory effect is the motor evoked potential (MEP), the impact of NIBS techniques is commonly estimated as the change in MEP amplitude. This approach has several limitations: first, the use of MEP limits the evaluation of stimulation to the motor cortex excluding all the other brain areas. Second, MEP is an indirect measure of brain activity and is influenced by several factors. To overcome these limitations several studies have used new outcomes to measure brain changes after neuromodulation techniques with the concurrent use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalogram (EEG). In the present review, we examine studies that use TMS-EEG before and after a single session of neuromodulatory TMS. Then, we focused our literature research on the description of the different metrics derived from TMS-EEG to measure the effect of neuromodulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Cruciani
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Mancuso
- Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Valerio Sveva
- Department of Anatomical and Histological Sciences, Legal Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
| | - Davide Maccarrone
- Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Todisco
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Motolese
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesca Santoro
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Fabio Pilato
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Lorenzo Rocchi
- Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Di Lazzaro
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Fioravante Capone
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liu G, Li J, Zhao J, Roberts N, Kong D, Qi X, Xing H, Gong Q. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) localization by co-registration of facial point clouds. Brain Stimul 2023; 16:79-81. [PMID: 36682719 DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2023.01.837] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Accepted: 01/14/2023] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Gaojie Liu
- College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jing Li
- Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Junji Zhao
- Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Neil Roberts
- Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Edinburgh Imaging and Centre for Reproductive Health (CFRH), Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Dechen Kong
- College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xu Qi
- College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Haoyang Xing
- College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Research Unit of Psychoradiology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Chengdu, China.
| | - Qiyong Gong
- Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Research Unit of Psychoradiology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tran Y. EEG Signal Processing for Biomedical Applications. SENSORS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2022; 22:9754. [PMID: 36560123 PMCID: PMC9787770 DOI: 10.3390/s22249754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) signals are used widely in clinical and research settings [...].
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yvonne Tran
- Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University Hearing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Simpson HD, Schulze-Bonhage A, Cascino GD, Fisher RS, Jobst BC, Sperling MR, Lundstrom BN. Practical considerations in epilepsy neurostimulation. Epilepsia 2022; 63:2445-2460. [PMID: 35700144 PMCID: PMC9888395 DOI: 10.1111/epi.17329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Revised: 06/10/2022] [Accepted: 06/13/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Neuromodulation is a key therapeutic tool for clinicians managing patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Multiple devices are available with long-term follow-up and real-world experience. The aim of this review is to give a practical summary of available neuromodulation techniques to guide the selection of modalities, focusing on patient selection for devices, common approaches and techniques for initiation of programming, and outpatient management issues. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (DBS-ANT), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are all supported by randomized controlled trials that show safety and a significant impact on seizure reduction, as well as a suggestion of reduction in the risk of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Significant seizure reductions are observed after 3 months for DBS, RNS, and VNS in randomized controlled trials, and efficacy appears to improve with time out to 7 to 10 years of follow-up for all modalities, albeit in uncontrolled follow-up or retrospective studies. A significant number of patients experience seizure-free intervals of 6 months or more with all three modalities. Number and location of epileptogenic foci are important factors affecting efficacy, and together with comorbidities such as severe mood or sleep disorders, may influence the choice of modality. Programming has evolved-DBS is typically initiated at lower current/voltage than used in the pivotal trial, whereas target charge density is lower with RNS, however generalizable optimal parameters are yet to be defined. Noninvasive brain stimulation is an emerging stimulation modality, although it is currently not used widely. In summary, clinical practice has evolved from those established in pivotal trials. Guidance is now available for clinicians who wish to expand their approach, and choice of neuromodulation technique may be tailored to individual patients based on their epilepsy characteristics, risk tolerance, and preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hugh D. Simpson
- Division of Epilepsy, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Gregory D. Cascino
- Division of Epilepsy, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robert S. Fisher
- Department of Neurology, Stanford Neuroscience Health Center, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Barbara C. Jobst
- Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Department of Neurology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, NH, USA
| | - Michael R. Sperling
- Division of Epilepsy, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Brian N. Lundstrom
- Division of Epilepsy, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|