Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Motor Cortex
- All Subjects: Primary Motor Cortex
- Creators: Barragan, Beatriz
- Creators: Gulick, Daniel Withers
Description
Noninvasive neuromodulation could help treat many neurological disorders, but existing techniques have low resolution and weak penetration. Ultrasound (US) shows promise for stimulation of smaller areas and subcortical structures. However, the mechanism and parameter design are not understood. US can stimulate tail and hindlimb movements in rats, but not forelimb, for unknown reasons. Potentially, US could also stimulate peripheral or enteric neurons for control of blood glucose.
To better understand the inconsistent effects across rat motor cortex, US modulation of electrically-evoked movements was tested. A stimulation array was implanted on the cortical surface and US (200 kHz, 30-60 W/cm2 peak) was applied while measuring changes in the evoked forelimb and hindlimb movements. Direct US stimulation of the hindlimb was also studied. To test peripheral effects, rat blood glucose levels were measured while applying US near the liver.
No short-term motor modulation was visible (95% confidence interval: -3.5% to +5.1% forelimb, -3.8% to +5.5% hindlimb). There was significant long-term (minutes-order) suppression (95% confidence interval: -3.7% to -10.8% forelimb, -3.8% to -11.9% hindlimb). This suppression may be due to the considerable heating (+1.8°C between US
on-US conditions); effects of heat and US were not separable in this experiment. US directly evoked hindlimb and scrotum movements in some sessions. This required a long interval, at least 3 seconds between US bursts. Movement could be evoked with much shorter pulses than used in literature (3 ms). The EMG latency (10 ms) was compatible with activation of corticospinal neurons. The glucose modulation test showed a strong increase in a few trials, but across all trials found no significant effect.
The single motor response and the long refractory period together suggest that only the beginning of the US burst had a stimulatory effect. This would explain the lack of short-term modulation, and suggests future work with shorter pulses could better explore the missing forelimb response. During the refractory period there was no change in the electrically-evoked response, which suggests the US stimulation mechanism is independent of normal brain activity. These results challenge the literature-standard protocols and provide new insights on the unknown mechanism.
To better understand the inconsistent effects across rat motor cortex, US modulation of electrically-evoked movements was tested. A stimulation array was implanted on the cortical surface and US (200 kHz, 30-60 W/cm2 peak) was applied while measuring changes in the evoked forelimb and hindlimb movements. Direct US stimulation of the hindlimb was also studied. To test peripheral effects, rat blood glucose levels were measured while applying US near the liver.
No short-term motor modulation was visible (95% confidence interval: -3.5% to +5.1% forelimb, -3.8% to +5.5% hindlimb). There was significant long-term (minutes-order) suppression (95% confidence interval: -3.7% to -10.8% forelimb, -3.8% to -11.9% hindlimb). This suppression may be due to the considerable heating (+1.8°C between US
on-US conditions); effects of heat and US were not separable in this experiment. US directly evoked hindlimb and scrotum movements in some sessions. This required a long interval, at least 3 seconds between US bursts. Movement could be evoked with much shorter pulses than used in literature (3 ms). The EMG latency (10 ms) was compatible with activation of corticospinal neurons. The glucose modulation test showed a strong increase in a few trials, but across all trials found no significant effect.
The single motor response and the long refractory period together suggest that only the beginning of the US burst had a stimulatory effect. This would explain the lack of short-term modulation, and suggests future work with shorter pulses could better explore the missing forelimb response. During the refractory period there was no change in the electrically-evoked response, which suggests the US stimulation mechanism is independent of normal brain activity. These results challenge the literature-standard protocols and provide new insights on the unknown mechanism.
ContributorsGulick, Daniel Withers (Author) / Kleim, Jeffrey (Thesis advisor) / Towe, Bruce (Thesis advisor) / Muthuswamy, Jitendran (Committee member) / Herman, Richard (Committee member) / Helms Tillery, Steven (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
The activation of the primary motor cortex (M1) is common in speech perception tasks that involve difficult listening conditions. Although the challenge of recognizing and discriminating non-native speech sounds appears to be an instantiation of listening under difficult circumstances, it is still unknown if M1 recruitment is facilitatory of second language speech perception. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of M1 associated with speech motor centers in processing acoustic inputs in the native (L1) and second language (L2), using repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) to selectively alter neural activity in M1. Thirty-six healthy English/Spanish bilingual subjects participated in the experiment. The performance on a listening word-to-picture matching task was measured before and after real- and sham-rTMS to the orbicularis oris (lip muscle) associated M1. Vowel Space Area (VSA) obtained from recordings of participants reading a passage in L2 before and after real-rTMS, was calculated to determine its utility as an rTMS aftereffect measure. There was high variability in the aftereffect of the rTMS protocol to the lip muscle among the participants. Approximately 50% of participants showed an inhibitory effect of rTMS, evidenced by smaller motor evoked potentials (MEPs) area, whereas the other 50% had a facilitatory effect, with larger MEPs. This suggests that rTMS has a complex influence on M1 excitability, and relying on grand-average results can obscure important individual differences in rTMS physiological and functional outcomes. Evidence of motor support to word recognition in the L2 was found. Participants showing an inhibitory aftereffect of rTMS on M1 produced slower and less accurate responses in the L2 task, whereas those showing a facilitatory aftereffect of rTMS on M1 produced more accurate responses in L2. In contrast, no effect of rTMS was found on the L1, where accuracy and speed were very similar after sham- and real-rTMS. The L2 VSA measure was indicative of the aftereffect of rTMS to M1 associated with speech production, supporting its utility as an rTMS aftereffect measure. This result revealed an interesting and novel relation between cerebral motor cortex activation and speech measures.
ContributorsBarragan, Beatriz (Author) / Liss, Julie (Thesis advisor) / Berisha, Visar (Committee member) / Rogalsky, Corianne (Committee member) / Restrepo, Adelaida (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018