Displaying all 9 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Noh NA, Fuggetta G, Manganotti P
    Malays J Med Sci, 2015 Dec;22(Spec Issue):36-44.
    PMID: 27006636 MyJurnal
    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive tool that is able to modulate the electrical activity of the brain depending upon its protocol of stimulation. Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a high-frequency TMS protocol that is able to induce prolonged plasticity changes in the brain. The induction of plasticity-like effects by TBS is useful in both experimental and therapeutic settings; however, the underlying neural mechanisms of this modulation remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of continuous TBS (cTBS) on the intrahemispheric and interhemispheric functional connectivity of the resting and active brain.
    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  2. Mohamad Safiai NI, Mohamad NA, Basri H, Inche Mat LN, Hoo FK, Abdul Rashid AM, et al.
    PLoS One, 2021;16(6):e0251528.
    PMID: 34138860 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251528
    BACKGROUND: Migraine may lead to a negative impact on the patients' quality of life with a subsequent substantial burden to society. Therapy options for treatment and prevention of migraine have progressed over the years and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is one of the promising non-pharmacological options. It induces and alters electric current in the brain via repetitive non-invasive brain stimulation in high frequency. In migraine patients, two common stimulation sites are the M1 cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The mechanism on how rTMS exerts therapeutic effects on migraine is not fully established, but the main postulation is that the neuromodulation via high-frequency rTMS (hf-rTMS) might inhibit pain perception. However, evidence from studies has been conflicting, thus the usefulness of hf-rTMS as migraine preventive treatment is still uncertain at this moment.

    METHODS: This is a systematic review protocol describing essential reporting items based on the PRISMA for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) (Registration number: CRD42020220636). We aim to review the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of hf-rTMS at DLPFC in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as migraine prophylactic treatment. We will search Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Biomed Central for relevant articles from randomised controlled clinical trials that used hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for the treatment of migraine. The risk of bias will be assessed using the version 2 "Risk of bias" tool from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1. We will investigate the evidence on efficacy, tolerability and safety and we will compare the outcomes between the hf-rTMS intervention and sham groups.

    DISCUSSION: This systematic review will further determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for migraine prophylaxis. It will provide additional data for health practitioners and policymakers about the usefulness of hf-rTMS for migraine preventive treatment.

    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation*
  3. Pridmore S, Erger S, May T
    Malays J Med Sci, 2019 May;26(3):102-109.
    PMID: 31303854 DOI: 10.21315/mjms2019.26.3.8
    Background: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is effective in major depressive episodes (MDE). However, MDE may follow a chronic, relapsing course, and some individuals may not satisfactorily respond to a first course of TMS.

    Objective: To investigate the outcome of second courses of TMS.

    Method: A naturalistic investigation-we prospectively studied 30 MDE in-patients and routinely collected information, including pre- and post-treatment with Six-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD6), a six-item Visual Analogue Scale (VAS6) and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S). Two categories of patients were considered: i) those who had remitted with a first course, but relapsed, and ii) those who had not remitted with the first course.

    Results: Thirty individuals received a second TMS course. The mean time to the second course was 27.5 weeks. Based on the HAMD6, 26 (87%) achieved remission after the first course, and 22 (73%) achieved remission after the second course. Furthermore, based on the HAMD6 results, of the four patients who did not achieve remission with a first course, three (75%) did so with a second course.

    Conclusion: In MDE, a second course of TMS is likely to help those who remitted to a first course and then relapsed, as well as those who did not achieve remission with a first course.

    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  4. Noh NA
    Malays J Med Sci, 2016 Jul;23(4):5-16.
    PMID: 27660540 MyJurnal DOI: 10.21315/mjms2016.23.4.2
    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive, non-pharmacological technique that is able to modulate cortical activity beyond the stimulation period. The residual aftereffects are akin to the plasticity mechanism of the brain and suggest the potential use of TMS for therapy. For years, TMS has been shown to transiently improve symptoms of neuropsychiatric disorders, but the underlying neural correlates remain elusive. Recently, there is evidence that altered connectivity of brain network dynamics is the mechanism underlying symptoms of various neuropsychiatric illnesses. By combining TMS and electroencephalography (EEG), the functional connectivity patterns among brain regions, and the causal link between function or behaviour and a specific brain region can be determined. Nonetheless, the brain network connectivity are highly complex and involve the dynamics interplay among multitude of brain regions. In this review article, we present previous TMS-EEG co-registration studies, which explore the functional connectivity patterns of human cerebral cortex. We argue the possibilities of neural correlates of long-term potentiation/depression (LTP-/LTD)-like mechanisms of synaptic plasticity that drive the TMS aftereffects as shown by the dissociation between EEG and motor evoked potentials (MEP) cortical output. Here, we also explore alternative explanations that drive the EEG oscillatory modulations post TMS. The precise knowledge of the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying TMS will help characterise disturbances in oscillatory patterns, and the altered functional connectivity in neuropsychiatric illnesses.
    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  5. Forogh B, Ahadi T, Nazari M, Sajadi S, Abdul Latif L, Akhavan Hejazi SM, et al.
    Basic Clin Neurosci, 2017 Sep-Oct;8(5):405-411.
    PMID: 29167727 DOI: 10.18869/nirp.bcn.8.5.405
    Introduction: Balance impairment is a common problem and a major cause of motor disability after stroke. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether low-frequency repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) improves the postural balance problems in stroke patients.

    Methods: This randomized double blind clinical trial with 12 weeks follow-up was conducted on stroke patients. Treatment was carried with 1 Hz rTMS in contralateral brain hemisphere over the primary motor area for 20 minutes (1200 pulses) for 5 consecutive days. Static postural stability, Medical Research Council (MRC), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Fugl-Meyer assessments were evaluated immediately, 3 weeks and 12 weeks after intervention.

    Results: A total of 26 patients were enrolled (age range=53 to 79 years; 61.5% were male) in this study. Administering rTMS produced a significant recovery based on BBS (df=86, 7; F=7.4; P=0.01), Fugl-Meyer Scale (df=86, 7; F=8.7; P<0.001), MRC score (df=87, 7; F=2.9; P=0.01), and static postural stability (df=87, 7; F=9.8; P<0.001) during the 12 weeks follow-up.

    Conclusion: According to the findings, rTMS as an adjuvant therapy may improve the static postural stability, falling risk, coordination, motor recovery, and muscle strength in patients with stroke.
    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  6. Hanafi MH, Kassim NK, Ibrahim AH, Adnan MM, Ahmad WMAW, Idris Z, et al.
    Malays J Med Sci, 2018 Mar;25(2):116-125.
    PMID: 30918461 MyJurnal DOI: 10.21315/mjms2018.25.2.12
    Background: Stroke is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in Malaysia. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is one of the new non-invasive modality to enhance the motor recovery in stroke patients.

    Objectives: This pilot study compared the motor evoked potential (MEP) changes using different settings of rTMS in the post-ischemic stroke patient. The goal of the study is to identify effect sizes for a further trial and evaluate safety aspects.

    Methods: Eight post-stroke patients with upper limb hemiparesis for at least six months duration were studied in a tertiary hospital in Northeast Malaysia. Quasi experimental design was applied and the participants were randomised into two groups using software generated random numbers. One of the two settings: i) inhibitory setting, or ii) facilitatory setting have been applied randomly during the first meeting. The motor evoked potential (MEP) were recorded before and after application of the rTMS setting. A week later, a similar procedure will be repeated but using different setting than the first intervention. Each patient will serve as their own control. Repeated measures ANOVA test was applied to determine the effect sizes for both intervention through the options of partial eta-squared (η2p).

    Result: The study observed large effect sizes (η2p > 0.14) for both rTMS settings in the lesion and non-lesion sides. For safety aspects, no minor or major side effects associated with the rTMS was reported by the participants.

    Conclusions: The partial eta square of MEP value for both rTMS settings (fascilitatory and inhibitory) in both lesion and non-lesion sides represents large effect sizes. We recommend further trial to increase number of sample in order to study the effectiveness of both settings in ischemic stroke patient. Our preliminary data showed both settings may improve the MEP of the upper extremity in the ischemic stroke patient. No significant improvement noted when comparing both settings.

    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  7. Goh HT, Chan HY, Abdul-Latif L
    J Neurol Phys Ther, 2015 Jan;39(1):15-22.
    PMID: 25427033 DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000064
    Noninvasive brain stimulation, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have gained popularity in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Little is known about the time course and duration of effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on corticospinal excitability in individuals with stroke. We examined the aftereffects of a single session of high-frequency rTMS (5 Hz) and anodal tDCS on corticospinal excitability in the same sample of participants with chronic stroke.
    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation*
  8. Naish KR, Houston-Price C, Bremner AJ, Holmes NP
    Neuropsychologia, 2014 11;64:331-48.
    PMID: 25281883 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.034
    Many human behaviours and pathologies have been attributed to the putative mirror neuron system, a neural system that is active during both the observation and execution of actions. While there are now a very large number of papers on the mirror neuron system, variations in the methods and analyses employed by researchers mean that the basic characteristics of the mirror response are not clear. This review focuses on three important aspects of the mirror response, as measured by modulations in corticospinal excitability: (1) muscle specificity; (2) direction; and (3) timing of modulation. We focus mainly on electromyographic (EMG) data gathered following single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), because this method provides precise information regarding these three aspects of the response. Data from paired-pulse TMS paradigms and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) are also considered when we discuss the possible mechanisms underlying the mirror response. In this systematic review of the literature, we examine the findings of 85 TMS and PNS studies of the human mirror response, and consider the limitations and advantages of the different methodological approaches these have adopted in relation to discrepancies between their findings. We conclude by proposing a testable model of how action observation modulates corticospinal excitability in humans. Specifically, we propose that action observation elicits an early, non-specific facilitation of corticospinal excitability (at around 90ms from action onset), followed by a later modulation of activity specific to the muscles involved in the observed action (from around 200ms). Testing this model will greatly advance our understanding of the mirror mechanism and provide a more stable grounding on which to base inferences about its role in human behaviour.
    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  9. Goodman G, Poznanski RR, Cacha L, Bercovich D
    J Integr Neurosci, 2015 Sep;14(3):281-93.
    PMID: 26477360 DOI: 10.1142/S0219635215500235
    Great advances have been made in signaling information on brain activity in individuals, or passing between an individual and a computer or robot. These include recording of natural activity using implants under the scalp or by external means or the reverse feeding of such data into the brain. In one recent example, noninvasive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) allowed feeding of digitalized information into the central nervous system (CNS). Thus, noninvasive electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of motor signals at the scalp, representing specific motor intention of hand moving in individual humans, were fed as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) at a maximum intensity of 2.0[Formula: see text]T through a circular magnetic coil placed flush on each of the heads of subjects present at a different location. The TMS was said to induce an electric current influencing axons of the motor cortex causing the intended hand movement: the first example of the transfer of motor intention and its expression, between the brains of two remote humans. However, to date the mechanisms involved, not least that relating to the participation of magnetic induction, remain unclear. In general, in animal biology, magnetic fields are usually the poor relation of neuronal current: generally "unseen" and if apparent, disregarded or just given a nod. Niels Bohr searched for a biological parallel to complementary phenomena of physics. Pertinently, the two-brains hypothesis (TBH) proposed recently that advanced animals, especially man, have two brains i.e., the animal CNS evolved as two fundamentally different though interdependent, complementary organs: one electro-ionic (tangible, known and accessible), and the other, electromagnetic (intangible and difficult to access) - a stable, structured and functional 3D compendium of variously induced interacting electro-magnetic (EM) fields. Research on the CNS in health and disease progresses including that on brain-brain, brain-computer and brain-robot engineering. As they grow even closer, these disciplines involve their own unique complexities, including direction by the laws of inductive physics. So the novel TBH hypothesis has wide fundamental implications, including those related to TMS. These require rethinking and renewed research engaging the fully complementary equivalence of mutual magnetic and electric field induction in the CNS and, within this context, a new mathematics of the brain to decipher higher cognitive operations not possible with current brain-brain and brain-machine interfaces. Bohr may now rest.
    Matched MeSH terms: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links