Cerebellar noninvasive neuromodulation influences the reactivity of the contralateral primary motor cortex and surrounding areas: a TMS-EMG-EEG study

• Published in: Cerebellum (London, England) Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 319 - 331
• Main Authors: L, Rocchi, DA, Spampinato, V, Pezzopane, M, Orth, PS, Bisiacchi, JC, Rothwell, EP, Casula
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-06-2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Cerebellum; Cortex (motor); EEG; Electroencephalography; Electroencephalography - methods; Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology; Excitability; Humans; Interneurons; Magnetic fields; Motor Cortex - physiology; Motor evoked potentials; Neurobiology; Neurology; Neuromodulation; Neurosciences; Original Article; Oscillations; Physiology; Pyramidal tracts; Rehabilitation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods; Cerebellum; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; TMS-EEG; Transcranial evoked potentials; Brain oscillations; Motor cortex; Electroencephalography
• ISSN: 1473-4230; 1473-4222; 1473-4230
• DOI: 10.1007/s12311-022-01398-0

Understanding cerebellar–cortical physiological interactions is of fundamental importance to advance the efficacy of neurorehabilitation strategies for patients with cerebellar damage. Previous works have aimed to modulate this pathway by applying transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the cerebellum and probing the resulting changes in the primary motor cortex (M1) excitability with motor-evoked potentials (MEPs). While these protocols produce changes in cerebellar excitability, their ability to modulate MEPs has produced inconsistent results, mainly due to the MEP being a highly variable outcome measure that is susceptible to fluctuations in the excitability of M1 neurons and spinal interneurons. To overcome this limitation, we combined TMS with electroencephalography (EEG) to directly record TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) and oscillations from the scalp. In three sessions, we applied intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), cathodal direct current stimulation (c-DC) or sham stimulation to modulate cerebellar activity. To assess the effects on M1 and nearby cortex, we recorded TMS-EEG and MEPs before, immediately after (T1) and 15 min (T2) following cerebellar neuromodulation. We found that cerebellar iTBS immediately increased TMS-induced alpha oscillations and produced lasting facilitatory effects on TEPs, whereas c-DC immediately decreased TMS-induced alpha oscillations and reduced TEPs. We also found increased MEP following iTBS but not after c-DC. All of the TMS-EEG measures showed high test–retest repeatability. Overall, this work importantly shows that cerebellar neuromodulation influences both cortical and corticospinal physiological measures; however, they are more pronounced and detailed when utilizing TMS-EEG outcome measures. These findings highlight the advantage of using TMS-EEG over MEPs when assessing the effects of neuromodulation.