4.5 Article

Intracortical inhibition and facilitation with unilateral dominant, unilateral nondominant and bilateral movement tasks in left- and right-handed adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 269, 期 1-2, 页码 96-104

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.12.033

关键词

motor cortex; neuronal excitability; motor control

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P60 AG012583, P60AG 12583, P60 AG012583-08] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate intracortical inhibition and facilitation in response to unilateral dominant, nondominant and bilateral biceps activation and short-term upper extremity training in right- and left-handed adults. Methods: Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to measure intracortical excitability in motor dominant and nondominant cortices of 26 nondisabled adults. Neural facilitation and inhibition were measured in each hemisphere during unilateral dominant, nondominant and bilateral arm activation and after training in each condition. Results: No differences were seen between right- and left-handed subjects. Intracortical facilitation and decreased inhibition were seen in each hemisphere with unilateral activation/training of contralateral muscles and bilateral muscle activation/training. Persistent intracortical inhibition was seen in each hemisphere with ipsilateral muscle activation/training. Inhibition was greater in the nondominant hemisphere during dominant hemisphere activation (dominant arm contraction). Conclusion: Strongly dominant individuals show no difference in intracortical responses given handedness. Intracortical activity with unilateral and bilateral arm activation and short-term training differs based on hemispheric dominance, with the motor dominant hemisphere exerting a larger inhibitory influence over the nondominant hemisphere. Bilateral activation and training have a disinhibitory effect in both dominant and nondominant hemispheres. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据