Open AccessDifferential Effect of Conditioning Sequences in Coupling Inhibitory/Facilitatory Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for PostStroke Motor Recovery
Author(s) -
Wang ChihPin,
Tsai PoYi,
Yang Tsui Fen,
Yang KuangYao,
Wang ChienChih
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
cns neuroscience and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.403
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1755-5949
pISSN - 1755-5930
DOI - 10.1111/cns.12221
Subject(s) - transcranial magnetic stimulation , motor cortex , stimulation , psychology , neuromodulation , primary motor cortex , physical medicine and rehabilitation , stroke (engine) , neuroscience , conditioning , inhibitory postsynaptic potential , brain stimulation , medicine , mechanical engineering , statistics , mathematics , engineering
Summary Introduction While neuromodulation through unihemispheric repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (r TMS ) has shown promise for the motor recovery of stroke patients, the effectiveness of the coupling of different r TMS protocols remains unclear. Aims We aimed to test the long‐term efficacy of this strategy with different applying sequences and to identify the electrophysiological correlates of motor improvements to the paretic hand. Results In our sham‐controlled, double‐blinded parallel study, 48 stroke patients (2–6 months poststroke) were randomly allocated to three groups. Group A underwent 20‐session r TMS conditioning initiated with 10‐session 1 Hz r TMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex ( M 1), followed by 10‐session intermittent theta burst stimulation ( iTBS ) consequently over the ipsilesional M 1; Group B underwent the same two paradigms but in reverse; and Group C received sham stimulation that was identical to Group A . We tested cortical excitability and motor assessments at the baseline, postpriming r TMS , postconsequent r TMS , and at 3‐months follow‐up. Group A manifested greater improvement than Group B in F ugl‐ M eyer A ssessment ( FMA ), W olf M otor F unction testing ( WMFT ) score, and muscle strength ( P = 0.001–0.02) post the priming rTMS . After the consequent r TMS , Group A continued to present a superior outcome than Group B in FMA ( P = 0.015) and WMFT score ( P = 0.008) with significant behavior‐electrophysiological correlation. Conclusions Conditioning the contralesional M 1 prior to ipsilesional i TBS was found to be optimal for enhancing hand function, and this effect persisted for at least 3 months. Early modulation within 6 months poststroke rebalances interhemispheric competition and appears to be a feasible time window for r TMS intervention.