↓ Skip to main content

Plastic Changes in Human Motor Cortical Output Induced by Random but not Closed-Loop Peripheral Stimulation: the Curse of Causality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Plastic Changes in Human Motor Cortical Output Induced by Random but not Closed-Loop Peripheral Stimulation: the Curse of Causality
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00590
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth I. Brown, Elizabeth R. Williams, Felipe de Carvalho, Stuart N. Baker

Abstract

Previous work showed that repetitive peripheral nerve stimulation can induce plastic changes in motor cortical output. Triggering electrical stimulation of central structures from natural activity can also generate plasticity. In this study, we tested whether triggering peripheral nerve stimulation from muscle activity would likewise induce changes in motor output. We developed a wearable electronic device capable of recording electromyogram (EMG) and delivering electrical stimulation under closed-loop control. This allowed paired stimuli to be delivered over longer periods than standard laboratory-based protocols. We tested this device in healthy human volunteers. Motor cortical output in relaxed thenar muscles was first assessed via the recruitment curve of responses to contralateral transcranial magnetic stimulation. The wearable device was then configured to record thenar EMG and stimulate the median nerve at the wrist (intensity around motor threshold, rate ~0.66 Hz). Subjects carried out normal daily activities for 4-7 h, before returning to the laboratory for repeated recruitment curve assessment. Four stimulation protocols were tested (9-14 subjects each): No Stim, no stimuli delivered; Activity, stimuli triggered by EMG activity above threshold; Saved, stimuli timed according to a previous Activity session in the same subject; Rest, stimuli given when EMG was silent. As expected, No Stim did not modify the recruitment curve. Activity and Rest conditions produced no significant effects across subjects, although there were changes in some individuals. Saved produced a significant and substantial increase, with average responses 2.14 times larger at 30% stimulator intensity above threshold. We argue that unavoidable delays in the closed loop feedback, due mainly to central and peripheral conduction times, mean that stimuli in the Activity paradigm arrived too late after cortical activation to generate consistent plastic changes. By contrast, stimuli delivered essentially at random during the Saved paradigm may have caused a generalized increase in cortical excitability akin to stochastic resonance, leading to plastic changes in corticospinal output. Our study demonstrates that non-invasive closed loop stimulation may be critically limited by conduction delays and the unavoidable constraint of causality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 22%
Engineering 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,412,909
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,985
of 7,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,706
of 306,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#98
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.