Back

Not two sides of the same coin: Divergent effects of motor state on corticospinal and cortical responses to TMS of motor cortex

Beck, M. M.; Christiansen, L.; Heyl, M.; Mastropasqua, A.; Van Hoornweder, S.; Thielscher, A.; Tomasevic, L.; Siebner, H.

2025-09-12 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.09.07.674734 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex can elicit motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in target muscles, reflecting corticospinal excitability. MEP amplitudes increase with TMS intensity and can be facilitated by tonic muscle pre-activation. Since conventional transcranial evoked potentials (TEPs) also grow with increasing TMS intensity, cortical and corticospinal responses are often considered two facets of the same process. If this were true, changes in physiological motor state should modulate TEPs and MEPs in a similar manner. MethodsTo compare the state-dependency of cortical and corticospinal responses to single-pulse TMS, we simultaneously recorded TEPs and MEPs in 16 healthy young adults during relaxation and isometric contraction of the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. For each condition, 100 biphasic TMS pulses were delivered to the left primary motor hand area at five different intensities centered around the resting motor threshold. ResultsTEP and MEP amplitudes increased with stimulation intensity. As predicted, tonic muscle contraction consistently facilitated MEP. On the contrary, muscle contraction attenuated two key peaks of the TEP (N15 and N100). The state-dependent effects of corticospinal and cortical responses were not correlated. DiscussionBoth TEPs and MEPs are reliably modulated by motor state, yet they differ in direction and their magnitudes do not scale with each other. These findings challenge the assumption that cortical and corticospinal responses are two aspects of the same process. MEP facilitation during contraction likely reflects increased spinal excitability, whereas TEP attenuation may reflect reduced responsiveness of cortico-cortical or cortico-subcortical networks.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.