Intensity dependency of peripheral nerve stimulation in spinal LTP induced by paired associative corticospinal-motoneuronal stimulation (PCMS)

Paired associative corticospinal-motoneuronal stimulation (PCMS) induces plasticity at synapses between corticospinal tracts (CSTs) and spinal motoneurons (SMs). We investigated the effects of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PNS) intensity on PCMS-induced plasticity. PCMS consisted of 180 paired stimuli of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left primary motor cortex with PNS on the right ulnar nerve at the wrist. We compared effects induced by different PNS intensities: supramaximal, twice and three times sensory threshold intensities. For evaluating efficacy of the synapse between CSTs and SMs, single-pulse TMS was delivered at cervicomedullary junction level, and cervicomedullary motor-evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the right first-dorsal interosseous muscle before and after PCMS. PCMS with the supramaximal PNS intensity increased CMEP amplitude. The facilitatory effect of PCMS with the supramaximal PNS was larger than those of PCMS with weaker PNS intensities. Sham TMS with the supramaximal PNS showed no CMEP changes after the intervention. PNS intensity of PCMS influences the magnitude of synaptic plasticity induction between the CSTs and SMs at the spinal level, and the supramaximal intensity is the best for induction of long-term potentiation-like effects. The PNS intensity may influence the number of activated SMs by axonal backpropagating pulses with PNS which must overlap with descending volleys induced by TMS.

A Bayesian approach to analysing cortico-cortical associative stimulation induced increases in the excitability of corticospinal projections in humans

Repeated pairing of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over left and right primary motor cortex (M1), at intensities sufficient to generate descending volleys, produces sustained increases in corticospinal excitability. In other paired associative stimulation (PAS) protocols, in which peripheral afferent stimulation is the first element, changes in corticospinal excitability achieved when the second stimulus consists of brief bursts of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), are comparable to those obtained if TMS is used instead (McNickle and Carson 2015). The present aim was to determine whether associative effects are induced when the first stimulus of a cortico-cortical pair is tACS, or alternatively subthreshold TMS. Bursts of tACS (500 ms; 140 Hz; 1 mA) were associated (180 stimulus pairs) with single magnetic stimuli (120% resting motor threshold rMT) delivered over the opposite (left) M1. The tACS ended 6 ms prior to the TMS. In a separate condition, TMS (55% rMT) was delivered to right M1 6 ms before (120% rMT) TMS was applied over left M1. In a sham condition, TMS (120% rMT) was delivered to left M1 only. The limitations of null hypothesis significance testing are well documented. We therefore employed Bayes factors to assess evidence in support of experimental hypotheses—defined precisely in terms of predicted effect sizes, that these two novel variants of PAS increase corticospinal excitability. Although both interventions induced sustained (~ 20–30 min) increases in corticospinal excitability, the evidence in support of the experimental hypotheses (over specified alternatives) was generally greater for the paired TMS-TMS than the tACS-TMS conditions.

Transspinal stimulation decreases corticospinal excitability and alters the function of spinal locomotor networks

Locomotion requires the continuous integration of descending motor commands and sensory inputs from the legs by spinal central pattern generator circuits. Modulation of spinal neural circuits by transspinal stimulation is well documented, but how transspinal stimulation affects corticospinal excitability during walking in humans remains elusive. We measured the motor evoked potentials (MEPs) at multiple phases of the step cycle conditioned with transspinal stimulation delivered at sub- and suprathreshold intensities of the spinally mediated transspinal evoked potential (TEP). Transspinal stimulation was delivered before or after transcranial magnetic stimulation during which summation between MEP and TEP responses in the surface EMG was absent or present. Relationships between MEP amplitude and background EMG activity, silent period duration, and phase-dependent EMG amplitude modulation during and after stimulation were also determined. Ankle flexor and extensor MEPs were depressed by suprathreshold transspinal stimulation when descending volleys were timed to interact with transspinal stimulation-induced motoneuron depolarization at the spinal cord. MEP depression coincided with decreased MEP gain, unaltered MEP threshold, and unaltered silent period duration. Locomotor EMG activity of bilateral knee and ankle muscles was significantly depressed during the step at which transspinal stimulation was delivered but fully recovered at the subsequent step. The results support a model in which MEP depression by transspinal stimulation occurs via subcortical or spinal mechanisms. Transspinal stimulation disrupts the locomotor output of flexor and extensor motoneurons initially, but the intact nervous system has the ability to rapidly overcome this pronounced locomotor adaptation. In conclusion, transspinal stimulation directly affects spinal locomotor centers in healthy humans. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Lumbar transspinal stimulation decreases ankle flexor and extensor motor evoked potentials (MEPs) during walking. The MEP depression coincides with decreased MEP gain, unaltered MEP threshold changes, and unaltered silent period duration. These findings indicate that MEP depression is subcortical or spinal in origin. Healthy subjects could rapidly overcome the pronounced depression of muscle activity during the step at which transspinal stimulation was delivered. Thus, transspinal stimulation directly affects the function of spinal locomotor networks in healthy humans.

Double-Pulse Magnetic Brain Stem Stimulation: Mimicking Successive Descending Volleys

Magnetic stimulation with a double-cone-coil over the back of the head activates the motor tracts at the level of pyramidal decussation (brain stem stimulation [BST]). However, single-pulse BST (single BST) sometimes cannot elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in patients with corticospinal tract involvement. We developed a technique using double-pulse BST (double BST) to elicit MEPs even in patients whose threshold is abnormally elevated. Subjects were 11 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with corticospinal tract involvement in whom single BST evoked no discernible MEP. Double BST was performed at the intensities of resting and active motor threshold for single BST; MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle. Interstimulus intervals (ISIs) between two pulses were 1.5, 2, 3, 5, and 10 ms in healthy subjects. Double BST enlarged MEPs at ISIs of 1.5–5 ms with a peak at 2 ms in the relaxed condition, but not in the active condition. At an ISI of 2 ms in the relaxed condition, the MEP amplitude was 15 times as large as that to single BST in relaxed muscles. The onset latency of the enlarged MEP from the second pulse in relaxed muscles was the same as that by single BST in active muscles. Double BST at a 2-ms interval elicited MEPs in eight patients. Double BST can enhance MEPs probably by temporal summations of excitatory postsynaptic potentials at the spinal motoneurons. Using this new technique, we can obtain more information about the central motor conduction even when single BST fails to elicit any MEP.

Noninvasive Stimulation of Human Corticospinal Axons Innervating Leg Muscles

These studies investigated whether a single electrical stimulus over the thoracic spine activates corticospinal axons projecting to human leg muscles. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex and electrical stimulation over the thoracic spine were paired at seven interstimulus intervals, and surface electromyographic responses were recorded from rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, and soleus. The interstimulus intervals (ISIs) were set so that the first descending volley evoked by cortical stimulation had not arrived at (positive ISIs), was at the same level as (0 ISI) or had passed (negative ISIs) the site of activation of descending axons by the thoracic stimulation at the moment of its delivery. Compared with the responses to motor cortical stimulation alone, responses to paired stimuli were larger at negative ISIs but reduced at positive ISIs in all three leg muscles. This depression of responses at positive ISIs is consistent with an occlusive interaction in which an antidromic volley evoked by the thoracic stimulation collides with descending volleys evoked by cortical stimulation. The cortical and spinal stimuli activate some of the same corticospinal axons. Thus it is possible to examine the excitability of lower limb motoneuron pools to corticospinal inputs without the confounding effects of changes occurring within the motor cortex.

Origin of Facilitation of Motor-Evoked Potentials After Paired Magnetic Stimulation: Direct Recording of Epidural Activity in Conscious Humans

A magnetic transcranial conditioning stimulus given over the motor cortex at intensities below active threshold for obtaining motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) facilitates EMG responses evoked at rest in hand muscles by a suprathreshold magnetic stimulus given 10–25 ms later. This is known as intracortical facilitation (ICF). We recorded descending volleys produced by single and paired magnetic motor cortex stimulation through high cervical epidural electrodes implanted for pain relief in six conscious patients. At interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 10 and 15 ms, although MEP was facilitated, there was no change in the amplitude or number of descending volleys. An additional I wave sometimes was observed at 25 ms ISI. In one subject, we also evaluated the effects of reversing the direction of the induced current in the brain. At 10 ms ISI, the facilitation of the MEPs disappeared and was replaced by slight suppression; at 2 ms ISI, there was a pronounced facilitation of epidural volleys. Subsequent experiments on healthy subjects showed that a conditioning stimulus capable of producing ICF of MEPs had no effect on the EMG response evoked by transmastoidal electrical stimulation of corticospinal tract. We conclude that ICF occurs because either 1) the conditioning stimulus has a (thus far undetected) effect on spinal cord excitability that increases its response to the same amplitude test volley or 2) that it can alter the composition (but not the amplitude) of the descending volleys set up by the test stimulus such that a larger proportion of the activity is destined for the target muscle.