A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Multimodal response-predictor analysis for three non-invasive brain stimulation protocols. | LitMetric

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods such as paired associative stimulation (PAS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) are used to modulate cortical excitability and reduce symptoms in a variety of psychiatric disorders. Recent studies have shown significant inter-individual variability in the physiological response to these techniques when they are applied over the hand representation of primary motor cortex (M1). The goal of the present study was to identify neurophysiological, neuroanatomical, and neurochemical baseline characteristics that may predict response to commonly used NIBS protocols using data from a previously published study (Therrien-Blanchet et al., 2023). To this end, PAS, anodal tDCS, and 20-Hz tACS were administered to healthy participants in a repeated measures design. Pre/Post differences in transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced input-output curves were used to quantify changes in corticospinal excitability. Primary predictors were late I-wave latency, cortical thickness (CT) of M1, and fractional anisotropy of the corticospinal tract (CST) originating from M1. Secondary exploratory analysis was performed with CT in areas outside motor cortex, diffusion MRI (dMRI) metrics of the CST, magnetic resonance spectroscopy measurements of GABA, glutamate, and n-acetyl aspartate of M1, baseline corticospinal excitability, and cranial circumference. Multiple regression analysis showed that none of the primary variables predicted intervention outcome for any of the NIBS protocols. Exploratory analysis revealed no significant correlation between predictor variables and PAS outcome. tDCS and tACS were significantly correlated with some baseline measures. These data suggest that modulation of cortical excitability following several NIBS protocols may not be easily predicted by baseline characteristics, underscoring the need for a better understanding of their mechanism of action. Significant exploratory associations need to be confirmed in larger samples and confirmatory designs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2024.149372DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

nibs protocols
12
non-invasive brain
8
brain stimulation
8
current stimulation
8
cortical excitability
8
motor cortex
8
baseline characteristics
8
corticospinal excitability
8
exploratory analysis
8
stimulation
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!