MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does temporary inhibition of the human primary motor cortex alter resting and isometric handgrip exercise‐mediated sympathetic neural responses?

2017· article· en· W4389019155 on OpenAlexaffabout
Derek S. Kimmerly, Shaun G. Boe, Michel Ladouceur, J. A. Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCTBSMicroneurographyIsometric exerciseTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineMotor cortexPrimary motor cortexStimulationBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyHeart ratePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBaroreflex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resting muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) is elevated in stroke patients with damage encompassing the primary motor cortex (M1) and during single‐pulse, inhibitory transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) protocols over M1 in healthy participants. These findings suggest a suppressive role of M1 on resting levels of MSNA. It is currently unclear whether inhibition of M1 alters resting and/or exercise‐mediated sympathetic activity in humans. We tested the hypothesis that temporary inhibition of the contralateral hand region of M1 would exaggerate resting and isometric handgrip exercise (IHG)‐mediated MSNA. 12 (7♀) young, healthy (23±3 years, 25±3 kg•m −2 ) participants were instrumented for recordings of fibular MSNA (microneurography), heart rate (HR, electrocardiography), and non‐invasive blood pressure (BP, Portapres®). These measures were collected at rest, during 2 minutes of IHG (35% maximum effort) and 2 minutes of post‐exercise ischemia (PEI). This protocol was repeated under the following theta burst TMS (TBS) conditions: Sham (no TBS), continuous TBS (cTBS, Inhibitory) and intermittent TBS (iTBS, Facilitatory). Sham was always performed first followed by randomly assigned cTBS and iTBS conditions. Compared to Sham (30±7 bursts•100 heartbeats −1 ), MSNA burst incidence was higher (p<0.02) five minutes following cTBS (42±13 bursts•100 heartbeats −1 ) but unchanged (p=0.49) after iTBS (30±12 bursts•100 heartbeats −1 ). Resting HR and mean arterial BP (MAP) recorded during Sham were unchanged (all, p>0.51) following iTBS and cTBS. From rest, MSNA increased (p<0.05) after IHG (38±9 bursts•minute −1 ) and remained elevated following PEI (37±8 bursts•minute −1 ) during the Sham condition. Furthermore, HR and MAP responses peaked (both, p < 0.01) after 2‐minutes of IHG but returned to resting levels following PEI. These MSNA and cardiovascular responses to IHG and PEI were not different (all, p>0.37) in the cTBS and iTBS conditions. In conclusion, temporary inhibition of the hand region in M1 via cTBS produced a transient sympathoexcitation but did not alter resting HR or MAP. Neither facilitatory (iTBS) nor inhibitory (cTBS) stimulation protocols altered IHG‐mediated sympathetic or cardiovascular reflex responses. These findings warrant future investigation aimed at determining whether cTBS protocols can reduce resting MSNA in patient populations characterized by exaggerated sympathoexcitation (e.g., resistant hypertension, ischemic stroke). Support or Funding Information Support provided by: Canadian Foundation for Innovation: Leaders Opportunity Fund

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→