Transcranial magnetic stimulation elicits coupled neural and hemodynamic consequences

Science

Volumn 317, Issue 5846, 2007, Pages 1918-1921

  Allen, Elena A ^a   Pasley, Brian N ^a   Duong, Thang ^a   Freeman, Ralph D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRANIUM; FELID; NEUROLOGY; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE;

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CAT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HEMODYNAMICS; NERVE POTENTIAL; NEUROBIOLOGY; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROMODULATION; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NONHUMAN; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; VISUAL CORTEX;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; CATS; CEREBROVASCULAR CIRCULATION; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; HEMOGLOBINS; NEURONS; OXYGEN; PHOTIC STIMULATION; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; VISUAL CORTEX;

EID: 34848826326     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1146426     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. N. Singh, V. Pillay, Y. E. Choonara, Prog. Neurobiol. 81, 29 (2007).
2. A. T. Barker, R. Jalinous, I. L. Freeston, Lancet i, 1106 (1985).
3. A. Pascual-Leone, V. Walsh, J. Rothwell, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 10, 232 (2000).
4. M. S. George, R. H. Belmaker, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Clinical Psychiatry (American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DC, ed. 1, 2007).
5. P. B. Fitzgerald, S. Fountain, Z. J. Daskalakis, Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 2584 (2006).
6. A. T. Sack, D. E. Linden, Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev. 43, 41 (2003).
7. Y. Zheng et al., Neuroimage 16, 617 (2002).
8. M. Suh, S. Bahar, A. D. Mehta, T. H. Schwartz, J. Neurosci. 25, 68 (2005).
9. T. Takano et al., Nat. Neurosci. 10, 754 (2007).
10. J. K. Thompson, M. R. Peterson, R. D. Freeman, Science 299, 1070 (2003).
11. The partial pressure of oxygen within extravascular tissue is sensitive to changes in both cerebral blood flow and the rate of oxidative metabolism (10).
12. See supporting material on Science Online.
13. Hbt is quantitatively related to cerebral blood flow (14) and therefore provides an independent measurement of this variable.
14. R. L. Grubb Jr., M. E. Raichle, J. O. Eichling, M. M. Ter-Pogossian, Stroke 5, 630 (1974).
15. During suppressive phases, we use evoked rather than spontaneous spiking to index neural activity because baseline spontaneous activity (∼1 spike/s) is typically too low to detect signal decreases.
16. A. von Stein, J. Sarnthein, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 38, 301 (2000).
17. One might expect to observe visually elicited oxygen responses during the evoked intervals of the TMS trial (fig. S2B). However, stimulus-evoked responses are considerably smaller and more variable than TMS-induced oxygen responses, and are therefore negligible in the current paradigm (fig. S6).
18. A. Shmuel, M. Augath, A. Oeltermann, N. K. Logothetis, Nat. Neurosci. 9, 569 (2006).
19. B. N. Pasley, B. A. Inglis, R. D. Freeman, Neuroimage 36, 269 (2007).
20. J. Niessing et al., Science 309, 948 (2005).
21. On the basis of previous work in awake animals (22) and the similarity of neurovascular organization (23, 24) across the cortex, we expect that preserved coupling after TMS will generalize to a broad range of cortical regions and physiological states.
22. J. Berwick et al., J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 22, 670 (2002).
23. C. Iadecola, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 347 (2004).
24. H. M. Duvernoy, S. Delon, J. L. Vannson, Brain Res. Bull. 7, 519 (1981).
25. A. Pascual-Leone, J. Valls-Sole, E. M. Wassermann, M. Hallett, Brain 117, 847 (1994).
26. B. Takano et al., Neuroimage 23, 849 (2004).
27. Y. Z. Huang, M. J. Edwards, E. Rounis, K. P. Bhatia, J. C. Rothwell, Neuron 45, 201 (2005).
28. F. Maeda, J. P. Keenan, J. M. Tormos, H. Topka, A. Pascual-Leone, Clin. Neurophysiol. 111, 800 (2000).
29. H. Wang, X. Wang, H. Scheich, Neuroreport 7, 521 (1996).
30. S. F. Cooke, T. V. Bliss, Brain 129, 1659 (2006).
31. C. Holscher, R. Anwyl, M. J. Rowan, J. Neurosci. 17, 6470 (1997).
32. V. Wespatat, F. Tennigkeit, W. Singer, J. Neurosci. 24, 9067 (2004).
33. J. Jacobs, M. J. Kahana, A. D. Ekstrom, I. Fried, J. Neurosci. 27, 3839 (2007).
34. T. Paus et al., J. Neurophysiol. 79, 1102 (1998).
35. H. R. Siebner et al., Neuroimage 14, 883 (2001).
36. A. Pascual-Leone et al., J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 15, 333 (1998).
37. M. L. Kringelbach, N. Jenkinson, S. L. Owen, T. Z. Aziz, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 623 (2007).
38. A. M. Speer et al., Biol. Psychiatry 54, 826 (2003).
39. A. T. Sack et al., Cereb. Cortex (2007).
40. C. C. Ruff et al., Curr. Biol. 16, 1479 (2006).
41. We thank our colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, and R. Bartholomew, N. Lines, and L. Gibson for assistance in developing the electrophysiological apparatus. Supported by research and CORE grants from the National Eye Institute (EY01175 and EY03176, respectively) and by NSF graduate research fellowship 2003014861.