bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019 · 10 citations · 41 references
Life SciencesNeurobiologyNeuroscienceNeurophysiologySystems NeuroscienceCentral Nervous SystemCentral Pattern GeneratorsCortical PhysiologyNeural OscillationsRhythmic MovementCortical OscillationsPhase CodingPhase PrecessionRhythmic Neural ActivityRhythmic Neural Coding
Abstract Background The motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the motor hand area (M1-HAND) show substantial inter-trial variability. Pericentral mu-rhythm oscillations, might contribute to inter-trial variability. Recent studies targeting mu-activity based on real-time electroencephalography (EEG) reported an influence of mu-power and mu-phase on the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in a preselected group with strong pericentral mu-activity. Other studies that determined mu-power or mu-phase based on post-hoc trial sorting according in non-preselected individuals were largely negative. Objectives To reassess if cortico-spinal activity is modulated by the mu-rhythm, we applied single-pulse TMS to the M1-HAND conditional on the phase of the intrinsically expressed pericentral mu-rhythm in 14 non-preselected healthy young participants. Methods TMS was given at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees of the mu-phase. Based on the absence of effects of mu-phase or mu-power when analyzing the mean MEP amplitudes, we also computed a linear mixed effects model, which included mu-phase, mu-power, inter-stimulus interval (ISIs) as fixed effects, treating the subject factor as a random effect. Results Mixed model analysis revealed a significant effect of mu-power and ISI, but no effect of mu-phase and no interactions. MEP amplitude scaled linearly with lower mu-power or longer ISIs, but these modulatory effects were very small relative to inter-trial MEP variability. Conclusion Our largely negative results are in agreement with previous offline TMS-EEG studies and point to a possible influence of ISI. Future research needs to clarify under which circumstances the responsiveness of human the M1-HAND to TMS depends on the synchronicity with mu-power and mu-phase. Highlights Phase-triggered TMS at four distinct phases of the ongoing mu-oscillations is technically feasible in non-preselected young volunteers Targeting the ongoing mu-activity did not reveal consistent modulatory effect of mu-phase on corticospinal excitability in a non-preselected group Mixed-effects analysis revealed a weak but significant effect of pre-stimulus mu-power and ISI on corticospinal excitability
41
The Design and Implementation of FFTW3
Matteo Frigo, Steven G. Johnson · Proceedings of the IEEE · 2005 · 5.2K citations
Saskia Haegens, Verónica Nácher, Rogelio Luna et al. · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2011 · 812 citations · Full text