Exploring the Influence of Inter-Trial Interval on the Assessment of Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition

Overview

Journal Bioengineering (Basel)

Date 2024 Jul 27

PMID 39061727

Authors

Lidio Lima de Albuquerque

Milan Pantovic

Erik W Wilkins

Desiree Morris

Mitchell Clingo

Sage Boss

Zachary A Riley

Brach Poston

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) is a common paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) measure used to assess primary motor cortex (M1) interneuron activity in healthy populations and in neurological disorders. Many of the parameters of TMS stimulation to most accurately measure SICI have been determined. However, one TMS parameter that has not been investigated is the time between SICI trials (termed inter-trial interval; ITI). This is despite a series of single-pulse TMS studies which have reported that motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude were suppressed for short, but not long ITIs in approximately the initial ten trials of a TMS block of 20-30 trials. The primary purpose was to examine the effects of ITI on the quantification of SICI at rest. A total of 23 healthy adults completed an experimental session that included four SICI trial blocks. Each block utilized a different ITI (4, 6, 8, and 10 s) and was comprised of a total of 26 SICI trials divided into three epochs. ANOVA revealed that the main effects for ITI and epoch as well as their interaction were all non-statistically significant for SICI. We conclude that the shorter (4-6 s) ITIs used in studies investigating SICI should not alter the interpretation of M1 activity, while having the advantages of being more comfortable to participants and reducing the experimental time needed to evaluate perform single and paired-pulse TMS experiments.

References

Matilainen N, Soldati M, Laakso I . The Effect of Inter-pulse Interval on TMS Motor Evoked Potentials in Active Muscles. Front Hum Neurosci. 2022; 16:845476. PMC: 8980278. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.845476. View

Lidstone D, Miah F, Poston B, Beasley J, Mostofsky S, Dufek J . Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Show Impairments During Dynamic Versus Static Grip-force Tracking. Autism Res. 2020; 13(12):2177-2189. DOI: 10.1002/aur.2370. View

Zehr E . Considerations for use of the Hoffmann reflex in exercise studies. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002; 86(6):455-68. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-002-0577-5. View

Spampinato D, Ibanez J, Rocchi L, Rothwell J . Motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation: interpreting a simple measure of a complex system. J Physiol. 2023; 601(14):2827-2851. PMC: 10952180. DOI: 10.1113/JP281885. View

Rosburg T, Zimmerer K, Huonker R . Short-term habituation of auditory evoked potential and neuromagnetic field components in dependence of the interstimulus interval. Exp Brain Res. 2010; 205(4):559-70. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-010-2391-3. View

Ortu E, Deriu F, Suppa A, Tolu E, Rothwell J . Effects of volitional contraction on intracortical inhibition and facilitation in the human motor cortex. J Physiol. 2008; 586(21):5147-59. PMC: 2652145. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2008.158956. View

Ginanneschi F, Del Santo F, Dominici F, Gelli F, Mazzocchio R, Rossi A . Changes in corticomotor excitability of hand muscles in relation to static shoulder positions. Exp Brain Res. 2004; 161(3):374-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-004-2084-x. View

Hansen N, Nielsen J . The effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation on corticomuscular coherence in humans. J Physiol. 2004; 561(Pt 1):295-306. PMC: 1665343. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2004.071910. View

. Consideration of Sample Size in Neuroscience Studies. J Neurosci. 2020; 40(21):4076-4077. PMC: 7244197. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0866-20.2020. View

10.

Moller C, Arai N, Lucke J, Ziemann U . Hysteresis effects on the input-output curve of motor evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(5):1003-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.03.001. View

11.

Liepert J, Classen J, Cohen L, Hallett M . Task-dependent changes of intracortical inhibition. Exp Brain Res. 1998; 118(3):421-6. DOI: 10.1007/s002210050296. View

12.

Devanne H, Lavoie B, Capaday C . Input-output properties and gain changes in the human corticospinal pathway. Exp Brain Res. 1997; 114(2):329-38. DOI: 10.1007/pl00005641. View

13.

de Albuquerque L, Fischer K, Pauls A, Pantovic M, Guadagnoli M, Riley Z . An acute application of transcranial random noise stimulation does not enhance motor skill acquisition or retention in a golf putting task. Hum Mov Sci. 2019; 66:241-248. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2019.04.017. View

14.

Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Sole J, Wassermann E, Hallett M . Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain. 1994; 117 ( Pt 4):847-58. DOI: 10.1093/brain/117.4.847. View

15.

Mooney R, Cirillo J, Byblow W . Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor skill learning in young and older adults. Exp Brain Res. 2019; 237(9):2331-2344. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-019-05599-8. View

16.

Ferbert A, Priori A, Rothwell J, Day B, Colebatch J, Marsden C . Interhemispheric inhibition of the human motor cortex. J Physiol. 1992; 453:525-46. PMC: 1175572. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1992.sp019243. View

17.

Hoogendam J, Ramakers G, Di Lazzaro V . Physiology of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human brain. Brain Stimul. 2010; 3(2):95-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2009.10.005. View

18.

Poston B, Christou E, Enoka J, Enoka R . Timing variability and not force variability predicts the endpoint accuracy of fast and slow isometric contractions. Exp Brain Res. 2009; 202(1):189-202. PMC: 3631579. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-2126-5. View

19.

Schmidt S, Cichy R, Kraft A, Brocke J, Irlbacher K, Brandt S . An initial transient-state and reliable measures of corticospinal excitability in TMS studies. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(5):987-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.02.164. View

20.

De Guzman K, Young R, Contini V, Clinton E, Hitchcock A, Riley Z . The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Fatigue Resistance. Brain Sci. 2023; 13(8). PMC: 10452200. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13081225. View