Loading…

P 30. Evoking language errors using online paired-pulse TMS – A proof-of-principle study

Objective. The individual cortical representation of language areas can be assessed non-invasively using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). We recently showed that rTMS with a frequency of 30 Hz is superior to the most commonly used protocol of (5-)10 Hz. However, rTMS protocols st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical neurophysiology 2021-08, Vol.132 (8), p.e15-e15
Main Authors: Nettekoven, C., Pieczewski, J., Neuschmelting, V., Jonas, K., Goldbrunner, R., Grefkes, C., Weiß Lucas, C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective. The individual cortical representation of language areas can be assessed non-invasively using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). We recently showed that rTMS with a frequency of 30 Hz is superior to the most commonly used protocol of (5-)10 Hz. However, rTMS protocols still suffer from a relatively low number of evoked language errors and the sensory discomfort evoked by the stimulation, highlighting the need for improved stimulation protocols. We, therefore, tested whether paired pulse (pp-)TMS is also suitable for inducing language errors. Methods. 13 healthy, right-handed subjects (f = 6, 25–41 years) were investigated using two different rTMS protocols: (i) the 30 Hz rTMS as control and (ii) the novel pp-TMS (interstimulus-interval: 7 ms). TMS protocols were applied in a pseudo-randomized order during a picture naming task (picture-to-trigger interval: 0 ms) over cortical language areas. 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). Results. 30 Hz rTMS evoked a significantly higher number of errors than the pp-protocol, i.e., 18 ± 12 % vs 10 ± 7 % (p 
ISSN:1388-2457
1872-8952
DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2021.02.351