Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 453

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The mechanisms of interhemispheric inhibition in the human motor cortex

Open access
Daskalakis, Zafiris J., Christensen, Bruce K., Fitzgerald, Paul B., Roshan, Lailoma, Chen, Robert·2002·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation can be used to non‐invasively study inhibitory processes in the human motor cortex. Interhemispheric inhibition can be measured by applying a conditioning stimulus to the motor cortex resulting in inhibition of the contralateral motor cortex. Transcranial magnetic stimulation can also be used to demonstrate ipsilateral cortico‐cortical inhibition in the motor cortex. At least two different ipsilateral cortico‐cortical inhibitory processes have been identified: short interval intracortical inhibition and long interval intracortical inhibition. However, the relationship between interhemispheric inhibition and ipsilateral cortico‐cortical inhibition remains unclear. This study examined the relationship between interhemispheric inhibition, short interval intracortical inhibition and long interval intracortical inhibition. First, the effect of test stimulus intensity on each inhibitory process was studied. Second, the effects of interhemispheric inhibition on short interval intracortical inhibition and long interval intracortical inhibition on interhemispheric inhibition were examined. Motor evoked potentials were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle in 11 right‐handed healthy volunteers. For interhemispheric inhibition, conditioning stimuli were applied to the right motor cortex and test stimuli to the left motor cortex. For short interval intracortical inhibition and long interval intracortical inhibition, both conditioning stimuli and test stimuli were applied to the left motor cortex. With increasing test stimulus intensities, long interval intracortical inhibition and interhemispheric inhibition decreased, while short interval intracortical inhibition increased. Moreover, short interval intracortical inhibition was significantly reduced in the presence of interhemispheric inhibition. Interhemispheric inhibition was significantly reduced in the presence of long interval intracortical inhibition when matched for test motor evoked potential amplitude but the difference was not significant when matched for test pulse intensity. These findings suggest that both interhemispheric inhibition and long interval intracortical inhibition are predominately mediated by low threshold cortical neurons and may share common inhibitory mechanisms. In contrast, the mechanisms mediating short interval intracortical inhibition are probably different from those mediating long interval intracortical inhibition and interhemispheric inhibition although these systems appear to interact.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jphysiol.2002.017673

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Daskalakis, Z. J., Christensen, B. K., Fitzgerald, P. B., Roshan, L., & Chen, R.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08
Volume
543
Issue
1
Pages
317-326
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2024933671
Cited by
453
References
2
FWCI
6.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.