TY  - CONF
A1  - Nettekoven, Charlotte Maria
A1  - Pieczewski, Julia Luise
A1  - Jonas, Kristina
A1  - Neuschmelting, Volker
A1  - Grefkes, Christian Béla
A1  - Goldbrunner, Roland
A1  - Weiß Lucas, Carolin
T1  - Ultra-short train TMS for more specific mapping of cortical language areas
T2  - Brain and Spine
N2  - Oral e-Poster Presentations - Booth 2: Neuro-Oncology C (Imaging&Monitoring), September 27, 2023, 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM
Background: Repetitive TMS (rTMS) can be used to non-invasively map cortical language areas. Commonly, frequencies of 5-10 Hz are used to induce speech errors. We could recently show that frequencies of 30 and 50 Hz are advantageous to achieve higher reliability. However, high-frequent rTMS applied over perisylvian regions still suffer from limited tolerability. Using short-train or paired-pulse TMS (pp-TMS) might offer a good alternative to rTMS to interfere with speech production. In this study, we, therefore, compared 30 Hz rTMS to pp-TMS aiming at improved language mapping.
Methods: 13 healthy, right-handed subjects (f=6, 25-41 years) were investigated using two different rTMS protocols: (i) 30 Hz rTMS and (ii) pp-TMS. TMS protocols were applied in a pseudo-randomized order during a picture naming task (picture-to-trigger interval: 0 ms) over cortical language areas. In a subsequent study, we compared pp-TMS also to short trains of three TMS pulses and repetitive paired pulse TMS. Language errors were post-hoc analysed by two independent raters and were assigned to eight different error categories. The level of pain was assessed on a subjective 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS). Moreover, language error distribution was analysed using a cortical parcellation system.
Results: 30 Hz rTMS evoked a significantly higher number of errors than the pp-protocol, i.e., 18 ± 12 % vs. 10 ± 7 % (p<0.05). However, pp-TMS was significantly better tolerated with a mean NRS of 2.3 ± 1.6 vs. 3.4 ± 1.5 (p<0.05, FDR-corrected). Of note, pp-TMS could induce a higher number of anomias (15 ± 15 %) than repetitive TMS protocols (4 ± 7 %; p<0.1, FDR-corrected), but less dysarthria. The cortical distribution of errors differed between the two protocols. The results of train-of-three TMS were similar to the pp-TMS protocol.
Conclusions: Due to its better tolerability, pp-TMS might offer the possibility to stimulate regions which are particularly prone to direct facial / trigeminal nerve stimulation, e.g., the inferior frontal gyrus. Moreover, pp-TMS seems advantageous for mapping patients who are comparatively susceptible to rTMS side effects and with regard to safety in general.
Y1  - 2023
UR  - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/78813
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-788130
SN  - 2772-5294
VL  - 3
IS  - Supplement 3, 102168
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  -