Biological and anatomical factors influencing interindividual variability to noninvasive brain stimulation of the primary motor cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pellegrini ◽  
Maryam Zoghi ◽  
Shapour Jaberzadeh

AbstractNoninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modifies corticospinal excitability (CSE) historically in a predictable manner dependent on stimulation parameters. Researchers, however, discuss high degrees of variability between individuals, either responding as expected or not responding as expected. The explanation for this interindividual variability remains unknown with suggested interplay between stimulation parameters and variations in biological, anatomical, and physiological factors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of variation in inherent factors within an individual (biological and anatomical factors) on CSE in response to NIBS of the primary motor cortex. Twenty-two studies were included investigating genetic variation (n=7), age variation (n=4), gender variation (n=7), and anatomical variation (n=5). The results indicate that variation in brain-derived neurotrophic factor genotypes may have an effect on CSE after NIBS. Variation between younger and older adults also affects CSE after NIBS. Variation between age-matched males and females does not affect CSE after NIBS, but variation across the menstrual cycle does. Variation between skull thickness and brain tissue morphology influences the electric field magnitude that ultimately reaches the primary motor cortex. These findings indicate that biological and anatomical variations may in part account for interindividual variability in CSE in response to NIBS of the primary motor cortex, categorizing individuals as responding as expected (responders) or not responding as expected (nonresponders).

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-412
Author(s):  
Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas ◽  
Kevin Pacheco-Barrios ◽  
Stefano Giannoni-Luza ◽  
Oscar Rivera-Torrejon ◽  
Felipe Fregni

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 1336-1345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara M. Vacas ◽  
Florindo Stella ◽  
Julia C. Loureiro ◽  
Frederico Simões do Couto ◽  
Albino J. Oliveira-Maia ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-366.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Paula S. Salazar ◽  
Patrícia G. Vaz ◽  
Ritchele R. Marchese ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Camila Pinto ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nahian Chowdhury ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
Samantha K Millard ◽  
Patrick Skippen ◽  
Katarzyna Bilska ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: The primary motor cortex (M1) is a key brain region implicated in pain processing. Here, we present a protocol for a review that aims to synthesise and critically appraise the evidence for the effect of experimentalpain on M1 function. Methods/Analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Electronic databases will be searched using a predetermined strategy. Studies published before April 2020 that investigate the effects of experimentally induced pain on corticomotor excitability (CME) in healthy individuals will be included if they meet eligibility criteria. Study identification, data extraction andrisk of bias assessment will be conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer consulted for any disagreements. The primary outcomes will include group level changes in CME and intracortical, transcortical and sensorimotor modulators of CME. A separate analysis using individual data will also be conducted to explore individual differences in CME in response to experimental pain. The meta-analysis will consider the following factors: pain model (transient, tonic, transitional pain), type of painful tissue (cutaneous, musculoskeletal), time points of outcome measures(during or after recovery from pain) and localisation of pain(target area, control area). Discussion: This review will provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms within M1 that mediate experimentally induced pain, both on a group and individual level. Registration Number: The systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (#CRD42020173172)


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 883-899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Hassanzahraee ◽  
Maryam Zoghi ◽  
Shapour Jaberzadeh

Abstract Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques could induce changes in corticospinal excitability (CSE) and neuroplasticity. These changes could be affected by different factors, including having a session of stimulation called the ‘priming’ protocol before the main stimulation session called the ‘test’ protocol. Literature indicates that a priming protocol could affect the activity of postsynaptic neurons, form a neuronal history, and then modify the expected effects of the test protocol on CSE indicated by the amplitude of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor-evoked potentials. This prior history affects a threshold to activate the necessary mechanism stabilizing the neuronal activity within a useful dynamic range. For studying the effects of this history and related metaplasticity mechanisms in the human primary motor cortex (M1), priming-test protocols are successfully employed. Thirty-two studies were included in this review to investigate how different priming protocols could affect the induced effects of a test protocol on CSE in healthy individuals. The results showed that if the history of synaptic activity were high or low enough to displace the threshold, the expected effects of the test protocol would be the reverse. This effect reversal is regulated by homeostatic mechanisms. On the contrary, the effects of the test protocol would not be the reverse, and at most we experience a prolongation of the lasting effects if the aforementioned history is not enough to displace the threshold. This effect prolongation is mediated by nonhomeostatic mechanisms. Therefore, based on the characteristics of priming-test protocols and the interval between them, the expected results of priming-test protocols would be different. Moreover, these findings could shed light on the different mechanisms of metaplasticity involved in NIBS. It helps us understand how we can improve the expected outcomes of these techniques in clinical approaches.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1270-1288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavia Di Pietro ◽  
James H. McAuley ◽  
Luke Parkitny ◽  
Martin Lotze ◽  
Benedict M. Wand ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
Neil E. O'Connell ◽  
Paula R. Beckenkamp ◽  
Ghufran Alhassani ◽  
Matthew B. Liston ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document