Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 189, Issue 1, pp 121–128 | Cite as

Perturbation of visuospatial attention by high-frequency offline rTMS

Research Note
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The contribution of different cortical regions to visuospatial attention can be probed with the help of perturbation techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Repetitive TMS (rTMS) has also been suggested as a tool for the therapy of brain injuries, by adjusting the neural excitability of injured or intact brain regions. Low- and high-frequency rTMS have been shown to result in subsequent (offline) reductions or increases of local cortical excitability, respectively. Previous studies demonstrated that low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS of posterior parietal cortex (PPC) produced significantly reduced detection of stimuli in the visual hemifield contralateral to the stimulation site, as well as increased ipsilateral detection. We here explored the functional impact of high-frequency (20 Hz) rTMS with an attention task similar to that of a previous low-frequency study (Hilgetag et al. in Nat Neurosci 4:953–957, 2001). Normal healthy subjects (N = 14) received high-frequency rTMS (20 Hz, 10 min, 50% stimulator output) over right or left PPC (coordinate points P4 or P3). After stimulation of the right PPC, detection of single visual stimuli in the contralateral hemifield was significantly impaired. Generally, rTMS of right and left PPC produced mirror-symmetric trends in reduced contralateral detection. These effects were still present after post-TMS sham stimulation (more than 20 min after the end of active rTMS). The results suggest that attentional function can be perturbed by high-frequency rTMS as well as by low-frequency rTMS, despite potential differences in the underlying neural mechanisms.

Keywords

Visual attention Posterior parietal cortex Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation Interhemispheric competition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

221_2008_1449_MOESM1_ESM.tif (3.1 mb)
MOESM1 [Figure S1: Titration results: stimulus detection performance versus stimulus size. Representative curves showing the detection performance of one subject (M.G.) for the three different stimulus conditions, left (L) or right (R) unilateral and bilateral (B) stimuli, before baseline testing. Such titration curves were obtained for all subjects, to select suitable peri-threshold stimuli for the experimental trials] (TIFF 3170 kb)
221_2008_1449_MOESM2_ESM.tif (3.6 mb)
MOESM2 [Figure S2. Changes of error responses and non-responses to bilateral stimuli for pooled data (a) as well as separated data after left and right parietal rTMS (b,d) and left and right control sham stimulation (d,e). Changes are represented relative to pre-TMS baseline. The labels on the x-axes in the figure represented possible errors which were: unilateral responses (left or right) to bilateral stimuli, and non-responses. No significant differences were found between the conditions] (TIFF 3734 kb)
221_2008_1449_MOESM3_ESM.tif (173 kb)
MOESM3 [Figure S3: Overall response distribution for bilateral stimulus detection, at baseline, after active TMS or first control sham, and post TMS sham or second control sham. Possible errors were contralateral or ipsilateral reports of unilateral stimuli as well as non-responses] (TIFF 172 kb)
221_2008_1449_MOESM4_ESM.tif (3.1 mb)
MOESM4 [Figure S4: Overall response distribution for unilateral stimulus detection, at baseline, after active TMS or first control sham, and post TMS sham or second control sham. Possible errors were non-responses, left or right unilateral error responses, and bilateral error responses] (TIFF 3170 kb)
221_2008_1449_MOESM5_ESM.tif (3.1 mb)
MOESM5 [Figure S5. Average group reaction times of stimulus detection in rTMS and sham stimulation conditions. No significant changes occurred between the different conditions] (TIFF 3170 kb)
221_2008_1449_MOESM6_ESM.tif (2.5 mb)
MOESM6 [Figure S6. Location of parietal stimulation sites (5 subjects), determined from Brainsight imaging. Stimulation sites (P3 and P4) for individual subjects are marked by white dots. Generally, the stimulation sites (grouped by white ellipses) were mostly located posteriorly in the superior parietal lobe close to the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and the adjacent angular gyrus (AG). In the anterior-posterior orientation, the sites were located just posterior to the level at which the sulcus intermedius primus (SIP, Gray 1999; Economo and Koskinas 1925) descends from the IPS and separates the angular gyrus (AG) from the supramarginal gyrus (SMG). Further abbreviations: CS, central sulcus; LS, lateral sulcus] (TIFF 2533 kb)
221_2008_1449_MOESM7_ESM.doc (19 kb)
MOESM7 [Supplementary material] (DOC 22 kb)

References

  1. Brighina F, Bisiach E, Oliveri M, Piazza A, La Bua V, Daniele O, Fierro B (2003) 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere ameliorates contralesional visuospatial neglect in humans. Neurosci Lett 336:131–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chambers CD, Mattingley JB (2005) Neurodisruption of selective attention: insights and implications. Trends Cogn Sci 9:542–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen R (2000) Studies of human motor physiology with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Muscle Nerve Suppl 9:S26–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen R, Classen J, Gerloff C, Celnik P, Wassermann EM, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1997) Depression of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 48(5):1398–1403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cocchini G, Cubelli R, Della Sala S, Beschin N (1999) Neglect without extinction. Cortex 35(3):285–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Shulman GL, Petersen SE (1993) A PET study of visuospatial attention. J Neurosci 13:1202–1226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbetta M, Kincade MJ, Lewis C, Snyder AZ, Sapir A (2005) Neural basis and recovery of spatial attention deficits in spatial neglect. Nat Neurosci 8(11):1603–1610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dambeck N, Sparing R, Meister IG, Wienemann M, Weidemann J, Topper R, Boroojerdi B (2006) Interhemispheric imbalance during visuospatial attention investigated by unilateral and bilateral TMS over human parietal cortices. Brain Res 1072:194–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Economo C, Koskinas GN (1925) Die Cytoarchitektonik der Hirnrinde des erwachsenen Menschen. Julius Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellison A, Schindler I, Pattison LL, Milner AD (2004) An exploration of the role of the superior temporal gyrus in visual search and spatial perception using TMS. Brain 127:2307–2315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fierro B, Brighina F, Oliveri M, Piazza A, La Bua V, Buffa D, Bisiach E (2000) Contralateral neglect induced by right posterior parietal rTMS in healthy subjects. Neuroreport 11:1519–1521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fink GR, Driver J, Rorden C, Baldeweg T, Dolan RJ (2000) Neural consequences of competing stimuli in both visual hemifields: a physiological basis for visual extinction. Ann Neurol 47(4):440–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerschlager W, Siebner HR, Rothwell JC (2001) Decreased corticospinal excitability after subthreshold 1 Hz rTMS over lateral premotor cortex. Neurology 57:449–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray’s anatomy 38th edn (1999) Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 1110–1111Google Scholar
  15. Herwig U, Satrapi P, Schonfeldt-Lecuona C (2003) Using the international 10-20 EEG system for positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topogr 16(2):95–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hilgetag CC, Theoret H, Pascual-Leone A (2001) Enhanced visual spatial attention ipsilateral to rTMS-induced ‘virtual lesions’ of human parietal cortex. Nat Neurosci 4:953–957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerkhoff G (2004) Neglect und assoziierte Störungen, Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim YH, Min SJ, Ko MH, Park JW, Jang SH, Lee PK (2005) Facilitating visuospatial attention for the contralateral hemifield by repetitive TMS on the posterior parietal cortex. Neurosci Lett 382:280–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim YH, You SH, Ko MH, Park JW, Lee KH, Jang SH, Yoo WK, Hallett M (2006) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced corticomotor excitability and associated motor skill acquisition in chronic stroke. Stroke 37(6):1471–1476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinsbourne M (1977) Hemi-neglect and hemisphere rivalry. Adv Neurol 18:41–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Koch G, Oliveri M, Torriero S, Caltagirone C (2005) Modulation of excitatory and inhibitory circuits for visual awareness in the human right parietal cortex. Exp Brain Res 160(4):510–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loo CK, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC, McDarmont BN, Mitchell PB, Sachdev PS (2000) Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in controlled treatmentstudies: are some “sham” forms active? Biol Psychiatry 47(4):325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maeda F, Keenan JP, Tormos JM, Topka H, Pascual-Leone A (2000a) Modulation of corticospinal excitability by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 111(5):800–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maeda F, Keenan JP, Tormos JM, Topka H, Pascual-Leone A (2000b) Interindividual variability of the modulatory effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cortical excitability. Exp Brain Res 133(4):425–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meister IG, Wienemann M, Buelte D, Grunewald C, Sparing R, Dambeck N, Boroojerdi B (2006) Hemiextinction induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporo-parietal junction. Neuroscience 142(1):119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesulam MM (1981) Cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Ann Neurol 10:309–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mevorach C, Humphreys GW, Shalev L (2005) Attending to local form while ignoring global aspects depends on handedness: evidence from TMS. Nat Neurosci 8:276–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muellbacher W, Ziemann U, Boroojerdi B, Hallett M (2000) Effects of low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor excitability and basic motor behavior. Clin Neurophysiol 111(6):1002–1007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliveri M, Rossini PM, Traversa R, Cicinelli P, Filippi MM, Pasqualetti P, Tomaiuolo F, Caltagirone C (1999) Left frontal transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces contralesional extinction in patients with unilateral right brain damage. Brain 122:1731–1739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliveri M, Bisiach E, Brighina F, Piazza A, La Bua V, Buffa D, Fierro B (2001) rTMS of the unaffected hemisphere transiently reduces contralesional visuospatial hemineglect. Neurology 57:1338–1340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pascual-Leone A, Gomez-Tortosa E, Grafman J, Alway D, Nichelli P, Hallett M (1994) Induction of visual extinction by rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of parietal lobe. Neurology 44:494–498PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Posner MI, Gilbert CD (1999) Attention and primary visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(6):2585–2587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ridding MC, Rothwell JC (2007) Is there a future for therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation? Nat Rev Neurosci 8(7):559–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rushmore RJ, Valero-Cabre A, Lomber SG, Hilgetag CC, Payne BR (2006) Functional circuitry underlying visual neglect. Brain 129:1803–1821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shindo K, Sugiyama K, Huabao L, Nishijima K, Kondo T, Izumi S (2006) Long-term effect of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the unaffected posterior parietal cortex in patients with unilateral spatial neglect. J Rehabil Med 38:65–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siebner HR, Lang N, Rizzo V, Nitsche MA, Paulus W, Lemon RN, Rothwell JC (2004) Preconditioning of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence for homeostatic plasticity in the human motor cortex. J Neurosci 24:3379–3385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thut G, Nietzel A, Pascual-Leone A (2005) Dorsal posterior parietal rTMS affects voluntary orienting of visuospatial attention. Cereb Cortex 15:628–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Todd G, Butler JE, Gandevia SC, Taylor JL (2006) Decreased input to the motor cortex increases motor cortical excitability. Clin Neurophysiol 117(11):2496–2503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valero-Cabre A, Payne BR, Pascual-Leone A (2007) Opposite impact on (14)C-2-deoxyglucose brain metabolism following patterns of high and low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the posterior parietal cortex. Exp Brain Res 176:603–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vallar G, Bottini G, Paulesu E (2003) Neglect syndromes: the role of the parietal cortex. Adv Neurol 93:293–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wassermann EM (1998) Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the international workshop on the safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, June 5–7, 1996. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 108:1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yantis S, Schwarzbach J, Serences JT, Carlson RL, Steinmetz MA, Pekar JJ, Courtney SM (2002) Transient neural activity in human parietal cortex during spatial attention shifts. Nat Neurosci 5(10):995–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neural Systems Lab, School of Engineering and ScienceJacobs University BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations