Top

Open Access 05-03-2024 | Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation | RESEARCH

Disentangling Cerebellar and Parietal Contributions to Gait and Body Schema: A Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study

Authors: Margherita Bertuccelli, Patrizia Bisiacchi, Alessandra Del Felice

Abstract

The overlap between motor and cognitive signs resulting from posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and cerebellar lesions can mask their relative contribution in the sensorimotor integration process. This study aimed to identify distinguishing motor and cognitive features to disentangle PPC and cerebellar involvement in two sensorimotor-related functions: gait and body schema representation. Thirty healthy volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to PPC or cerebellar stimulation. Sham stimulation and 1 Hz-repetitive-Transcranial-Magnetic-Stimulation were delivered over P3 or cerebellum before a balance and a walking distance estimation task. Each trial was repeated with eyes open (EO) and closed (EC). Eight inertial measurement units recorded spatiotemporal and kinematic variables of gait. Instability increased in both groups after real stimulation: PPC inhibition resulted in increased instability in EC conditions, as evidenced by increased ellipse area and range of movement in medio-lateral and anterior–posterior (ROMap) directions. Cerebellar inhibition affected both EC (increased ROMap) and EO stability (greater displacement of the center of mass). Inhibitory stimulation (EC vs. EO) affected also gait spatiotemporal variability, with a high variability of ankle and knee angles plus different patterns in the two groups (cerebellar vs parietal). Lastly, PPC group overestimates distances after real stimulation (EC condition) compared to the cerebellar group. Stability, gait variability, and distance estimation parameters may be useful clinical parameters to disentangle cerebellar and PPC sensorimotor integration deficits. Clinical differential diagnosis efficiency can benefit from this methodological approach.

Available only for authorised users

Machado S, et al. Sensorimotor integration: basic concepts, abnormalities related to movement disorders and sensorimotor training-induced cortical reorganization. Rev Neurol. 2010;51(7):427–36.PubMed

Malik RN, Cote R, Lam T. Sensorimotor integration of vision and proprioception for obstacle crossing in ambulatory individuals with spinal cord injury. J Neurophysiol. 2017;117(1):36–46. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00169.2016.CrossRefPubMed

Drew T, Andujar JE, Lajoie K, Yakovenko S. Cortical mechanisms involved in visuomotor coordination during precision walking. Brain Res Rev. 2008;57(1):199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.07.017.CrossRefPubMed

Milner AD, Goodale MA. Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(3):774–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.005.CrossRefPubMed

MacKinnon CD. Sensorimotor anatomy of gait, balance, and falls. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;159:3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63916-5.00001-X.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Head H, Holmes G. Researches into sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Lancet. 1912;179(4611):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)64640-3.CrossRef

de Vignemont F. Body schema and body image-Pros and cons. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(3):669–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.022.CrossRefPubMed

Schniepp R, Möhwald K, Wuehr M. Gait ataxia in humans: vestibular and cerebellar control of dynamic stability. J Neurol. 2017;264:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-017-8482-3.CrossRefPubMed

Casabona A, Valle MS, Bosco G, Perciavalle V. Cerebellar encoding of limb position. The Cerebellum. 2004;3(3):172–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14734220410016735.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Popa LS, Streng ML, Hewitt AL, Ebner TJ. the errors of our ways: understanding error representations in cerebellar-dependent motor learning. The Cerebellum. 2016;15(2):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-015-0685-5.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Schmahmann JD. Disorders of the cerebellum: Ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. J Neuropsychiatr Clin Neurosci. 2004;16(3):367–78. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.16.3.367. American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.CrossRef

12.

Ikkai A, Curtis CE. Common neural mechanisms supporting spatial working memory, attention and motor intention. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(6):1428–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.020.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Coslett HB, Schwartz MF. The parietal lobe and language. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;151:365–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63622-5.00018-8.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Pelton TA, Wing AM, Fraser D, van Vliet P. Differential effects of parietal and cerebellar stroke in response to object location perturbation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9(JULY):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00293.CrossRef

15.

Bertuccelli M, et al. Deconstructing Dravet syndrome neurocognitive development: A scoping review. Epilepsia. 2021;62(4):874–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.16844.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rossi S, et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132(1):269–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2020.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Pizzamiglio S, Abdalla H, Naeem U, Turner DL. Neural predictors of gait stability when walking freely in the real-world. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0357-z.CrossRef

18.

Young DR, Parikh PJ, Layne CS. The posterior parietal cortex is involved in gait adaptation: a bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020. 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.581026.

19.

Pauly MG, et al. Cerebellar rTMS and PAS effectively induce cerebellar plasticity. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82496-7.CrossRef

20.

Klomjai W, Katz R, Lackmy-Vallée A. Basic principles of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and repetitive TMS (rTMS). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58(4):208–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2015.05.005.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Aydin-Abidin S, Moliadze V, Eysel UT, Funke K. Effects of repetitive TMS on visually evoked potentials and EEG in the anaesthetized cat: Dependence on stimulus frequency and train duration. J Physiol. 2006;574(2):443–55. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2006.108464.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Hoogendam JM, Ramakers GMJ, Di Lazzaro V. Physiology of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human brain. Brain Stimul. 2010;3(2):95–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2009.10.005.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Touge T, Gerschlager W, Brown P, Rothwell JC. Are the after-effects of low-frequency rTMS on motor cortex excitability due to changes in the efficacy of cortical synapses? Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112(11):2138–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00651-4.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Manganotti P, Acler M, Masiero S, Del Felice A. TMS-evoked N100 responses as a prognostic factor in acute stroke. Funct Neurol. 2015;30(2):125–30. https://doi.org/10.11138/fneur/2015.30.2.125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Herwig U, Satrapi P, Schönfeldt-Lecuona C. Using the international 10–20 EEG system for positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topogr. 2003;16(2):95–9. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BRAT.0000006333.93597.9d.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Hardwick RM, Lesage E, Miall RC. Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation: The role of coil geometry and tissue depth. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(5):643–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.04.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Panyakaew P, Cho HJ, Srivanitchapoom P, Popa T, Wu T, Hallett M. Cerebellar brain inhibition in the target and surround muscles during voluntary tonic activation. Eur J Neurosci. 2016;43(8):1075–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Fernandez L, Major BP, Teo WP, Byrne LK, Enticott PG. The impact of stimulation intensity and coil type on reliability and tolerability of cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) via Dual-Coil TMS. Cerebellum. 2018;17(5):540–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-018-0942-5.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Myn U, Link M, Awinda M. Xsens mvn user manual. Enschede: Xsens Motion Technologies BV; 2015.

30.

Roetenberg D, Luinge H, Slycke P. Xsens MVN: Full 6DOF human motion tracking using miniature inertial sensors. Xsens Motion Technologies BV, Tech. Rep. 2009;1:1–7.

31.

Samuels, Myra L., Jeffrey A. Witmer, and Andrew A. Schaffner. Statistics for the life sciences. Vol. 4. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2003.

32.

O’Malley MJ. Normalization of temporal-distance parameters in pediatric gait. J Biomech. 1996;29(5):619–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(95)00088-7.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Lanska DJ. The Romberg sign and early instruments for measuring postural sway. Semin Neurol. 2002;22(4):409–18. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-36763.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Perry J, M. Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. New Jersey: SLACK; 2010.

35.

Niswander W, Kontson K. Evaluating the impact of imu sensor location and walking task on accuracy of gait event detection algorithms. Sensors. 2021;21(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21123989.

36.

Buckley E, Mazzà C, McNeill A. A systematic review of the gait characteristics associated with Cerebellar Ataxia. Gait Posture. 2018;60:154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.11.024.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Moon Y, Sung J, An R, Hernandez ME, Sosnoff JJ. Gait variability in people with neurological disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Mov Sci. 2016;47:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2016.03.010.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Dijkerman HC, de Haan EHF. Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behav Brain Sci. 2007;30(2):189–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001392.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ashizawa T, Xia G. Ataxia. Contin Lifelong Learn Neurol. 2016;22(4):1208–26. https://doi.org/10.1212/CON.0000000000000362.CrossRef

40.

Dominici N, Daprati E, Nico D, Cappellini G, Ivanenko YP, Lacquaniti F. Changes in the limb kinematics and walking-distance estimation after shank elongation: Evidence for a locomotor body schema? J Neurophysiol. 2009;101(3):1419–29. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.91165.2008.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Ivanenko YP, Dominici N, Daprati E, Nico D, Cappellini G, Lacquaniti F. Locomotor body scheme. Hum Mov Sci. 2011;30(2):341–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.04.001.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Iosa M, Fusco A, Morone G, Paolucci S. Walking there: Environmental influence on walking-distance estimation. Behav Brain Res. 2012;226(1):124–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.09.007.CrossRefPubMed

43.

D’Angelo M, di Pellegrino G, Seriani S, Gallina P, Frassinetti F. The sense of agency shapes body schema and peripersonal space. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13847. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32238-z.ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Krause V, Bashir S, Pollok B, Caipa A, Schnitzler A, Pascual-Leone A. 1Hz rTMS of the left posterior parietal cortex (PPC) modifies sensorimotor timing. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(14):3729–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.10.020.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Benussi A, et al. Stimulation over the cerebellum with a regular figure-of-eight coil induces reduced motor cortex inhibition in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy. Brain Stimul. 2019;12(5):1290–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.05.017.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Disentangling Cerebellar and Parietal Contributions to Gait and Body Schema: A Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study
Authors: Margherita Bertuccelli
Patrizia Bisiacchi
Alessandra Del Felice
Publication date: 05-03-2024
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published in: The Cerebellum
Print ISSN: 1473-4222
Electronic ISSN: 1473-4230
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-024-01678-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Disentangling Cerebellar and Parietal Contributions to Gait and Body Schema: A Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content