Corticospinal excitability is influenced by the recent history of electrical digital stimulation: implications for the relative magnitude of short-latency afferent inhibition
Marie Trolle Bonnesen, Søren A. FuglsangiD, Hartwig Roman SiebneriD, Lasse ChristianseniD
Abstract
BackgroundElectrical stimulation of the hand can suppress the motor evoked potential (MEP) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) when the afferent stimulus arrives in M1-HAND at the time of TMS. The magnitude of short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) is expressed as the ratio between the conditioned and unconditioned MEP and is widely used to probe sensorimotor interactions in human physiological studies. Objective/HypothesisWe hypothesized that corticospinal excitability and SAI are influenced by the recent history of peripheral electrical stimulation. MethodsIn twenty healthy participants, we recorded MEPs from the right first dorsal interosseus muscle. MEPs were evoked by single-pulse TMS of the left M1-HAND alone (unconditioned TMS) or by TMS preceded by electrical stimulation of the right index finger ("homotopic" conditioning) or little finger ("heterotopic" conditioning). The three conditions were pseudo-randomly intermixed or delivered in blocks in which a single condition was repeated five or ten times. MEP amplitudes and SAI magnitudes were compared using linear mixed effect models. ResultsAll stimulation protocols consistently produced SAI, which was stronger after homotopic stimulation. Randomly intermingling the three stimulation conditions reduced the relative magnitude of homotopic and heterotopic SAI as opposed to blocked stimulation. The apparent attenuation of SAI was caused by a suppression of the unconditioned but not the conditioned MEP amplitude during the randomly intermixed condition. Conclusion(s)The recent history of afferent stimulation modulates corticospinal excitability. This "history effect" impacts on the relative magnitude of SAI depending on how conditioned and unconditioned responses are intermixed and needs to be taken into consideration when probing afferent inhibition and corticospinal excitability.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
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
- Modulating Motor Cortex Plasticity via Cortical and Peripheral Somatosensory Stimulation
Shancheng Bao, Yuming Lei·Journal of NeurophysiologyPeer-reviewed·May 7, 2025
- The effect of subthreshold transcranial magnetic stimulation on the excitation of corticospinal volleys with different conduction times
Niclas Niemann, Patrick Wiegel, … Christian Leukel·bioRxiv·Nov 6, 2016
- Repetitive suprathreshold paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation alters corticospinal excitability
Suraj Suresh, Wei‐Yeh Liao, … Nigel C. Rogasch·bioRxiv·Oct 21, 2026
- Stimulus predictability rather than inter-trial interval itself affects motor evoked potential amplitudes
Saman Seifpour, Nele Haferkorn, … Til Ole Bergmann·bioRxiv·Sep 18, 2026
- Cortical and spinal contributions to remote interlimb facilitation in humans
Atsushi Sasaki, Tatsuya Kato, … Kimitaka Nakazawa·bioRxiv·May 6, 2026
- Pain and touch differentially modulate corticospinal excitability, independent of afferent inhibition
Louisa Gwynne, Luigi Tamè·bioRxiv·May 9, 2025