↓ Skip to main content

A Double-Coil TMS Method to Assess Corticospinal Excitability Changes at a Near-Simultaneous Time in the Two Hands during Movement Preparation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Double-Coil TMS Method to Assess Corticospinal Excitability Changes at a Near-Simultaneous Time in the Two Hands during Movement Preparation
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuelle Wilhelm, Caroline Quoilin, Charlotte Petitjean, Julie Duque

Abstract

Many previous transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies have investigated corticospinal excitability changes occurring when choosing which hand to use for an action, one of the most frequent decision people make in daily life. So far, these studies have applied single-pulse TMS eliciting motor-evoked potential (MEP) in one hand when this hand is either selected or non-selected. Using such method, hand choices were shown to entail the operation of two inhibitory mechanisms, suppressing MEPs in the targeted hand either when it is non-selected (competition resolution, CR) or selected (impulse control, IC). However, an important limitation of this "Single-Coil" method is that MEPs are elicited in selected and non-selected conditions during separate trials and thus those two settings may not be completely comparable. Moreover, a more important problem is that MEPs are computed in relation to the movement of different hands. The goal of the present study was to test a "Double-Coil" method to evaluate IC and CR preceding the same hand responses by applying Double-Coil TMS over the two primary motor cortices (M1) at a near-simultaneous time (1 ms inter-pulse interval). MEPs were obtained in the left (MEPLEFT) and right (MEPRIGHT) hands while subjects chose between left and right hand key-presses in blocks using a Single-Coil or a Double-Coil method; in the latter blocks, TMS was either applied over left M1 first (TMSLRM1 group, n = 12) or right M1 first (TMSRLM1 group, n = 12). MEPLEFT were suppressed preceding both left (IC) and right (CR) hand responses whereas MEPRIGHT were only suppressed preceding left (CR) but not right (IC) hand responses. This result was observed regardless of whether Single-Coil or Double-Coil TMS was applied in the two subject groups. However, in the TMSLRM1 group, the MEP suppression was attenuated in Double-Coil compared to Single-Coil blocks for both IC and CR, when probed with MEPLEFT (elicited by the second pulse). Although Double-Coil TMS may be a reliable method to assess bilateral motor excitability provided that a RM1-LM1 pulse order is used, further experiments are required to understand the reduced MEPLEFT changes in Double-Coil blocks when the LM1-RM1 pulse order was used.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 22%
Neuroscience 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,325,615
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,551
of 7,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,402
of 298,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#149
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.