MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cortical Plasticity Induction by Pairing Subthalamic Nucleus Deep-Brain Stimulation and Primary Motor Cortical Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease

2016· article· en· W2330232438 on OpenAlexafffund
Kaviraja Udupa, Nina Bahl, Zhen Ni, Carolyn Gunraj, Filomena Mazzella, Elena Moro, Mojgan Hodaie, Andrés M. Lozano, Anthony E. Lang, Robert Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceSubthalamic nucleusDeep brain stimulationNeuroplasticityMotor cortexPrimary motor cortexPsychologyStimulationBrain stimulationBasal gangliaParkinson's diseaseMedicineCentral nervous systemInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noninvasive brain stimulation studies have shown abnormal motor cortical plasticity in Parkinson's disease (PD). These studies used peripheral nerve stimulation paired with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to primary motor cortex (M1) at specific intervals to induce plasticity. Induction of cortical plasticity through stimulation of the basal ganglia (BG)-M1 connections has not been studied. In the present study, we used a novel technique of plasticity induction by repeated pairing of deep-brain stimulation (DBS) of the BG with M1 stimulation using TMS. We hypothesize that repeated pairing of subthalamic nucleus (STN)-DBS and M1-TMS at specific time intervals will lead to plasticity in the M1. Ten PD human patients with STN-DBS were studied in the on-medication state with DBS set to 3 Hz. The interstimulus intervals (ISIs) between STN-DBS and TMS that produced cortical facilitation were determined individually for each patient. Three plasticity induction conditions with repeated pairings (180 times) at specific ISIs (∼ 3 and ∼ 23 ms) that produced cortical facilitation and a control ISI of 167 ms were tested in random order. Repeated pairing of STN-DBS and M1-TMS at short (∼ 3 ms) and medium (∼ 23 ms) latencies increased M1 excitability that lasted for at least 45 min, whereas the control condition (fixed ISI of 167 ms) had no effect. There were no specific changes in motor thresholds, intracortical circuits, or recruitment curves. Our results indicate that paired-associative cortical plasticity can be induced by repeated STN and M1 stimulation at specific intervals. These results show that STN-DBS can modulate cortical plasticity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We introduced a new experimental paradigm to test the hypothesis that pairing subthalamic nucleus deep-brain stimulation (STN-DBS) with motor cortical transcranial magnetic stimulation (M1-TMS) at specific times can induce cortical plasticity in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). We found that repeated pairing of STN-DBS with TMS at short (∼ 3 ms) and medium (∼ 23 ms) intervals increased cortical excitability that lasted for up to 45 min, whereas the control condition (fixed latency of 167 ms) had no effects on cortical excitability. This is the first demonstration of associative plasticity in the STN-M1 circuits in PD patients using this novel technique. The potential therapeutic effects of combining DBS and noninvasive cortical stimulation should be investigated further.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207