TMS in cognitive neuroscience: Virtual lesion and beyond

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) excites axons of cortical neurons, leading in turn to synaptic activation of excitatory and inhibitory target neurons. However, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of how TMS activates the brain are still relatively unclear (Di Lazzaro et al., 2008; Rotem and Moses, 2008; Wagner et al., 2009). Despite this lack of detailed knowledge, TMS is increasingly more often used in cognitive neuroscience to test brain-behavior relation, through its capacity to disrupt task-related neuronal activity (‘virtual lesion’) (Pascual-Leone et al., 1999; Silvanto and Muggleton, 2008; Walsh and Pascual-Leone, 2003). ‘Virtual lesion’ is used in this article in its broadest term, i.e., transient alteration of the function of the cortical target induced by single-pulse TMS or short trains of TMS during a cognitive task (online mode), or by TMS plasticity protocols prior to the task (offline mode). The important question is: How valid is TMS as a tool to test brainbehavior relation, if its modes of action are not fully known? This account will be written from the perspective of TMS applications in the motor system, but the conclusions pertain to any field of cognitive neuroscience. It is currently thought that single-pulse TMS alters ongoing (task-relevant) neuronal activity by exciting many neurons by virtue of artificially synchronizing their action potentials, followed by long lasting inhibition (Siebner et al., 2009). If TMS alters cognitive task performance, then most people would agree with the statement that the stimulated brain region is causally involved in that task. While this, in its broad sense, is correct, many qualifications exist which may preclude more specific conclusions. The first problem is that it is still not exactly known which neuronal elements are excited by TMS and whether the main effect is excitatory or inhibitory. Extracellular single cell recordings in cat visual cortex showed that low-intensity TMS typically results in early excitation (increase in spontaneous

[1]  J. Rothwell,et al.  How does transcranial magnetic stimulation modify neuronal activity in the brain? Implications for studies of cognition , 2009, Cortex.

[2]  K. Stefan,et al.  Modulation of associative human motor cortical plasticity by attention. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation during Positron Emission Tomography: A New Method for Studying Connectivity of the Human Cerebral Cortex , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  Alvaro Pascual-Leone,et al.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a neurochromometrics of mind. , 2003 .

[5]  S. Swinnen,et al.  Unimanual muscle activation increases interhemispheric inhibition from the active to the resting hemisphere , 2008, Neuroscience Letters.

[6]  Juha Silvanto,et al.  Neural adaptation reveals state‐dependent effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[7]  Uri Eden,et al.  Biophysical foundations underlying TMS: Setting the stage for an effective use of neurostimulation in the cognitive neurosciences , 2009, Cortex.

[8]  Brian N. Pasley,et al.  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Elicits Coupled Neural and Hemodynamic Consequences , 2007, Science.

[9]  Daniel Zeller,et al.  Depression of human corticospinal excitability induced by magnetic theta-burst stimulation: evidence of rapid polarity-reversing metaplasticity. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  John C. Rothwell,et al.  Behavioral/systems/cognitive Functional Interplay between Posterior Parietal and Ipsilateral Motor Cortex Revealed by Twin-coil Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation during Reach Planning toward Contralateral Space , 2022 .

[11]  Colin Blakemore,et al.  Spatial Attention Changes Excitability of Human Visual Cortex to Direct Stimulation , 2007, Current Biology.

[12]  Joseph Classen,et al.  Cerebral Cortex doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi116 Temporary Occlusion of Associative Motor Cortical Plasticity by Prior Dynamic Motor Training , 2005 .

[13]  Walter Paulus,et al.  Timing-Dependent Modulation of Associative Plasticity by General Network Excitability in the Human Motor Cortex , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  E. Wassermann,et al.  Priming Stimulation Enhances the Depressant Effect of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  D. Ruge,et al.  Learning Modifies Subsequent Induction of Long-Term Potentiation-Like and Long-Term Depression-Like Plasticity in Human Motor Cortex , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  Fast Backprojections from the Motion to the Primary Visual Area Necessary for Visual Awareness , 2001, Science.

[17]  Ulf Ziemann,et al.  Homeostatic plasticity in human motor cortex demonstrated by two consecutive sessions of paired associative stimulation , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[18]  Julie Duque,et al.  Intermanual Differences in Movement-related Interhemispheric Inhibition , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Decreased corticospinal excitability after subthreshold 1 Hz rTMS over lateral premotor cortex , 2001, Neurology.

[20]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Neuronal responses to magnetic stimulation reveal cortical reactivity and connectivity , 1997, Neuroreport.

[21]  Elisha Moses,et al.  Magnetic stimulation of one-dimensional neuronal cultures. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[22]  R. Hanajima,et al.  Bidirectional long‐term motor cortical plasticity and metaplasticity induced by quadripulse transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2008, The Journal of physiology.

[23]  R. Lemon,et al.  State of the art: Physiology of transcranial motor cortex stimulation , 2008, Brain Stimulation.

[24]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Mapping causal interregional influences with concurrent TMS–fMRI , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Preconditioning with transcranial direct current stimulation sensitizes the motor cortex to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation and controls the direction of after-effects , 2004, Biological Psychiatry.

[26]  G. Tononi,et al.  Breakdown of Cortical Effective Connectivity During Sleep , 2005, Science.

[27]  J. Driver,et al.  Combining TMS and fMRI: From ‘virtual lesions’ to functional-network accounts of cognition , 2009, Cortex.

[28]  Klaus Funke,et al.  Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on single‐unit activity in the cat primary visual cortex , 2003, The Journal of physiology.

[29]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Functional MRI of the immediate impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on cortical and subcortical motor circuits , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[30]  Neil G. Muggleton,et al.  New light through old windows: Moving beyond the “virtual lesion” approach to transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2008, NeuroImage.

[31]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Preconditioning of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence for Homeostatic Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  L. Cohen,et al.  Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke , 2004, Annals of neurology.

[33]  I. Kanazawa,et al.  Interhemispheric facilitation of the hand motor area in humans , 2001, The Journal of physiology.

[34]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain-behaviour relationship by induction of 'virtual lesions'. , 1999, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[35]  Alfredo Berardelli,et al.  Phasic voluntary movements reverse the aftereffects of subsequent theta-burst stimulation in humans. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.