Brain stimulationNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
No trace of phase: Corticomotor excitability is not tuned by phase of pericentral mu-rhythm
Kristoffer Hougaard MadseniD, Anke Ninija KarabanoviD, Lærke Gebser KrohneiD, Mads Gylling SafeldtiD, Leo TomaseviciD, Hartwig Roman SiebneriD
Abstract
BackgroundThe 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.\n\nObjectivesTo 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.\n\nMethodsTMS 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.\n\nResultsMixed 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.\n\nConclusionOur 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.\n\nHighlightsO_LIPhase-triggered TMS at four distinct phases of the ongoing mu-oscillations is technically feasible in non-preselected young volunteers\nC_LIO_LITargeting the ongoing mu-activity did not reveal consistent modulatory effect of mu-phase on corticospinal excitability in a non-preselected group\nC_LIO_LIMixed-effects analysis revealed a weak but significant effect of pre-stimulus mu-power and ISI on corticospinal excitability\nC_LI
- organism: human
- assay: electronic health records
- research focus: differential expression
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 94
- FWCI
- 4.30
- Field percentile
- top 5%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Does pericentral mu-rhythm power corticomotor excitability? A matter of EEG perspective
Anke Ninija Karabanov, Kristoffer Hougaard Madsen, … Hartwig Roman Siebner·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Apr 20, 2021
- The phase of sensorimotor mu and beta oscillations has the opposite effect on corticospinal excitability
Miles Wischnewski, Zachary J. Haigh, … Alexander Opitz·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Aug 11, 2022
- State dependent motor cortex stimulation reveals distinct mechanisms for corticospinal excitability and cortical responses
Nipun D. Perera, Miles Wischnewski, … Alexander Opitz·eNeuroPeer-reviewed·Nov 1, 2024
- Not Just Noise: Aperiodic Brain Activity Reflects Corticospinal Excitability
Juliana Hougland, Miriam Kirchhoff, … Ulf Ziemann·bioRxiv·May 5, 2026
- Brain-State-Resolved Consistency of Corticospinal Responses with EEG-TMS
Timo van Hattem, Juliana Hougland, … Ulf Ziemann·bioRxiv·May 28, 2026
- Inhibiting corticospinal excitability by entraining ongoing mu-alpha rhythm in motor cortex
E. A. Zmeykina, Zsolt Turi, … Walter Paulus·bioRxiv·Nov 11, 2020