Ann Clin Neurophysiol.  2024;26(2):46-53. 10.14253/acn.24007.

Investigation of the transcallosal ventral premotor cortex connection in humans using transcranial magnetic stimulation

• Park JE
• Srivanitchapoom P
• Mathew P
• Thirugnanasambandam N
• Wu T
• Hallett M

• KMID: 2560431
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14253/acn.24007

Abstract

Background
The premotor cortex plays a role in the planning of movement. Previous transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies have shown ipsilateral premotor-to-motor inhibition in healthy subjects at rest. Moreover, this premotor-to-motor inhibition has been found to be modulated during preparation for movement, such as precision grip and whole hand grasp. Cooperation between the bilateral ventral premotor cortices may play a functional role. We aimed to investigate the influence of the contralateral on the ipsilateral ventral premotor cortex.
Methods
Fourteen right-handed healthy subjects (six women and eight men; mean age, 37 years; standard deviation, 14 years) completed the study. We used a three single-pulse TMS paradigm (preconditioning, conditioning and test pulse) to sequentially stimulate the right ventral premotor cortex, left ventral premotor cortex and left primary motor cortex.
Results
We found that in healthy subjects at rest, stimulating the contralateral ventral premotor cortex resulted in reversal of the resting premotor-to-motor inhibition.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that the contralateral ventral premotor cortex exerts an inhibitory influence on the ipsilateral ventral premotor cortex, which may be a component of bi-hemispheric control of manual tasks. This is the first study to evaluate the functional connectivity between the bilateral ventral premotor cortices.

Keyword

Premotor; Ventral; Transcallosal; Inhibition; Connectivity; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Premotor; Ventral; Transcallosal; Inhibition; Connectivity; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Sites of TMS. Example of the location of stimulated areas (left PMv, left M1, and right PMv) in one subject, as shown in Brainsight (Rogue Research, Inc., Cardiff, UK). The orange dots indicate left and right PMv, and the blue dot indicates L PMv. TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation; PMv, ventral premotor cortex; M1, primary motor cortex; L PMv, left ventral premotor cortex.

• 

  Fig. 2. Experimental conditions. (A) Schematic illustration of the coil positions on left PMv-left M1, right PMv-left M1 and right PMv-left PMv-left M1. The black coil illustrates the coil placed on the left M1. The red coil illustrates the coil placed on the left PMv. The blue coil illustrates the coil placed on the right PMv. (B) Experiment 1: conditioning of the left PMv prior to L M1 stimulation. Experiment 2: conditioning of the right PMv prior to L M1 stimulation. Experiment 3: sequential stimulation of the R PMv, L PMv and L M1. Interstimulus intervals are noted above, and stimulation intensities are noted below the respective brain regions. M1, primary motor cortex; PMv, ventral premotor cortex; L PMv, left ventral premotor cortex; L M1, left primary motor cortex; CS, conditioning stimulus; TS, test stimulus; RMT, resting motor threshold; R PMv, right ventral premotor cortex; PCS, preconditioning stimulus.

• 

  Fig. 3. Results of experiments 1, 2, and 3. (A) Ventral premotor-to-motor inhibition seen with paired-pulse TMS. Inhibition was seen with conditioning of PMv prior to M1 stimulation at all ISIs (4, 6, and 8 ms), with maximal inhibition seen at 6 ms. The p-values indicated were obtained from a RM-ANOVA performed on the mean of the normalized MEP amplitudes. (B) Results of experiment 2 (right PMv conditioning prior to left M1 stimulation) are shown. (C) Results of the main experiment (sequential three single-pulse stimulation) are shown. MEP, motor-evoked potential; TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation; PMv, ventral premotor cortex; M1, primary motor cortex; ISIs, interstimulus interval; RM-ANOVA, repeated-measures analysis of variance. *Statistically significant results were shown at ISIs of 4, 6, and 8 ms, indicating premotor-to-motor inhibition.

Reference

1. Davare M, Andres M, Cosnard G, Thonnard JL, Olivier E. Dissociating the role of ventral and dorsal premotor cortex in precision grasping. J Neurosci. 2006; 26:2260–2268.

2. Davare M, Lemon R, Olivier E. Selective modulation of interactions between ventral premotor cortex and primary motor cortex during precision grasping in humans. J Physiol. 2008; 586:2735–2742.

3. Arai N, Lu MK, Ugawa Y, Ziemann U. Effective connectivity between human supplementary motor area and primary motor cortex: a paired-coil TMS study. Exp Brain Res. 2012; 220:79–87.

4. Koch G, Fernandez Del Olmo M, Cheeran B, Ruge D, Schippling S, Caltagirone C, et al. Focal stimulation of the posterior parietal cortex increases the excitability of the ipsilateral motor cortex. J Neurosci. 2007; 27:6815–6822.

5. Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron. 2007; 55:187–199.

6. Koch G, Ruge D, Cheeran B, Fernandez Del Olmo M, Pecchioli C, Marconi B, et al. TMS activation of interhemispheric pathways between the posterior parietal cortex and the contralateral motor cortex. J Physiol. 2009; 587:4281–4292.

7. Ugawa Y, Uesaka Y, Terao Y, Hanajima R, Kanazawa I. Magnetic stimulation over the cerebellum in humans. Ann Neurol. 1995; 37:703–713.

8. Ferbert A, Priori A, Rothwell JC, Day BL, Colebatch JG, Marsden CD. Interhemispheric inhibition of the human motor cortex. J Physiol. 1992; 453:525–546.

9. Cattaneo L, Barchiesi G. Transcranial magnetic mapping of the short-latency modulations of corticospinal activity from the ipsilateral hemisphere during rest. Front Neural Circuits. 2011; 5:14.

10. Ziluk A, Premji A, Nelson AJ. Functional connectivity from area 5 to primary motor cortex via paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurosci Lett. 2010; 484:81–85.

11. Bäumer T, Schippling S, Kroeger J, Zittel S, Koch G, Thomalla G, et al. Inhibitory and facilitatory connectivity from ventral premotor to primary motor cortex in healthy humans at rest--a bifocal TMS study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120:1724–1731.

12. Davare M, Montague K, Olivier E, Rothwell JC, Lemon RN. Ventral premotor to primary motor cortical interactions during object-driven grasp in humans. Cortex. 2009; 45:1050–1057.

13. Boussaoud D, Tanné-Gariépy J, Wannier T, Rouiller EM. Callosal connections of dorsal versus ventral premotor areas in the macaque monkey: a multiple retrograde tracing study. BMC Neurosci. 2005; 6:67.

14. Marconi B, Genovesio A, Giannetti S, Molinari M, Caminiti R. Callosal connections of dorso-lateral premotor cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2003; 18:775–788.

15. Bencivenga F, Tullo MG, Sulpizio V, Galati G. Interhemispheric interplay between the left and right premotor cortex during grasping as assessed by dynamic causal modelling. Sci Rep. 2023; 13:4958.

16. Denyer R, Greeley B, Greenhouse I, Boyd LA. Interhemispheric inhibition between dorsal premotor and primary motor cortices is released during preparation of unimanual but not bimanual movements. Eur J Neurosci. 2024; 59:415–433.

17. Unger RH, Lowe MJ, Beall EB, Bethoux F, Jones SE, Machado AG, et al. Stimulation of the premotor cortex enhances interhemispheric functional connectivity in association with upper limb motor recovery in moderate-to-severe chronic stroke. Brain Connect. 2023; 13:453–463.

18. Pereira J, Direito B, Sayal A, Ferreira C, Castelo-Branco M. Self-modulation of premotor cortex interhemispheric connectivity in a real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback study using an adaptive approach. Brain Connect. 2019; 9:662–672.

19. Dancause N, Barbay S, Frost SB, Plautz EJ, Popescu M, Dixon PM, et al. Topographically divergent and convergent connectivity between premotor and primary motor cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2006; 16:1057–1068.

20. Binkofski F, Buccino G, Posse S, Seitz RJ, Rizzolatti G, Freund H. A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fMRI-study. Eur J Neurosci. 1999; 11:3276–3286.

21. Hofer S, Frahm J. Topography of the human corpus callosum revisited--comprehensive fiber tractography using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage. 2006; 32:989–994.

22. Jarbo K, Verstynen T, Schneider W. In vivo quantification of global connectivity in the human corpus callosum. NeuroImage. 2012; 59:1988–1996.

23. Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004; 55:400–409.

24. Duque J, Hummel F, Celnik P, Murase N, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Transcallosal inhibition in chronic subcortical stroke. NeuroImage. 2005; 28:940–946.

25. Boroojerdi B, Hungs M, Mull M, Töpper R, Noth J. Interhemispheric inhibition in patients with multiple sclerosis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998; 109:230–237.

26. Nelson AJ, Hoque T, Gunraj C, Ni Z, Chen R. Impaired interhemispheric inhibition in writer’s cramp. Neurology. 2010; 75:441–447.

27. Li JY, Espay AJ, Gunraj CA, Pal PK, Cunic DI, Lang AE, et al. Interhemispheric and ipsilateral connections in Parkinson’s disease: relation to mirror movements. Mov Disord. 2007; 22:813–821.

28. Schaechter JD, Perdue KL. Enhanced cortical activation in the contralesional hemisphere of chronic stroke patients in response to motor skill challenge. Cereb Cortex. 2008; 18:638–647.

29. Houdayer E, Beck S, Karabanov A, Poston B, Hallett M. The differential modulation of the ventral premotor-motor interaction during movement initiation is deficient in patients with focal hand dystonia. Eur J Neurosci. 2012; 35:478–785.

30. Koch G, Schneider S, Bäumer T, Franca M, Münchau A, Cheeran B, et al. Altered dorsal premotor-motor interhemispheric pathway activity in focal arm dystonia. Mov Disord. 2008; 23:660–668.

31. Bhasin A, Padma Srivastava MV, Kumaran SS, Bhatia R, Mohanty S. Neural interface of mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neurol India. 2012; 60:570–576.

32. Manthey S, Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY. Premotor cortex in observing erroneous action: an fMRI study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003; 15:296–307.