% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{WeissLucas:860098,
author = {Weiss Lucas, Carolin and Kallioniemi, Elisa and
Neuschmelting, Volker and Nettekoven, Charlotte and
Pieczewski, Julia and Jonas, Kristina and Goldbrunner,
Roland and Karhu, Jari and Grefkes, Christian and Julkunen,
Petro},
title = {{C}ortical {I}nhibition of {F}ace and {J}aw {M}uscle
{A}ctivity and {D}iscomfort {I}nduced by {R}epetitive and
{P}aired-{P}ulse {TMS} {D}uring an {O}vert {O}bject {N}aming
{T}ask},
journal = {Brain topography},
volume = {32},
number = {3},
issn = {1573-6792},
address = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-00884},
pages = {418-434},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Modulatory effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS) strongly depend on the stimulation parameters. Here,
we compared the immediate, task-locked inhibitory effects on
speech-related muscles and the tolerability of different TMS
protocols during a language production task. Repetitive TMS
(rTMS) and paired-pulse TMS (PP) were applied in 13 healthy
subjects over the primary motor cortex (M1) during a
finger-tapping/tongue-twisting tasks. The lowest
subject-specific TMS intensity leading to movement
disruptions was used for TMS over left-sided speech-related
areas during picture naming. Here, time-locked PP and rTMS
(10/30/50 Hz; randomized sequence) were applied. Cortical
silent periods (cSPs) were analyzed from electromyography
obtained from various face muscles. 30 Hz- and 50 Hz-rTMS
reliably evoked tongue movement disruption (ICC = 0.65)
at lower rTMS intensities compared to 10 Hz-rTMS or PP. CSPs
were elicited from the left hemisphere by all TMS protocols,
most reliably by PP (p < 0.001). Also, cSPs with longest
durations were induced by PP. Exploratory analyses of PP
suggest that the trials with strongest motor inhibitory
effects (presence of cSP) were associated with more
articulatory naming errors, hence hinting at the utility of
TMS-elicited, facial cSP for mapping of language production
areas. Higher-frequency rTMS and PP evoked stronger
inhibitory effects as compared to 10 Hz-rTMS during a
language task, thus enabling a probably more efficient and
tolerable routine for language mapping. The spatial
distribution of cranial muscle cSPs implies that TMS might
affect not only M1, but also distant parts of the language
network.},
cin = {INM-3},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:30673935},
UT = {WOS:000465224800006},
doi = {10.1007/s10548-019-00698-9},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/860098},
}