post-rTMS, 79 ± 6%; P = 067; Fig 3) For the Static task, the r

post-rTMS, 79 ± 6%; P = 0.67; Fig. 3). For the Static task, the rTMS regime did not significantly alter performance in the Responders group for ipsilesional targets (Pre-rTMS, 60 ± 3% vs. rTMS R7, 67 ± 8%; P = 0.45; Fig. 4). Interestingly, in the Non-responders group, while rTMS treatment Selleck Nutlin3a failed to positively influence contralesional detection it did produce decreases in correct performance for ipsilesional targets (Static task pre-rTMS, 58 ± 5% vs. rTMS R7, 43 ± 2%; P = 0.03). Similar effects were observed for the Moving 2 task (Pre-rTMS, 68 ± 6% vs. rTMS R7, 47 ± 3%; P = 0.01; Fig. 4). Taken together,

these data strongly suggest that in a specific subpopulation of participants the rTMS treatment could have modulated cortical function in an unexpected manner, impairing an ipsilateral function which should had remained otherwise unaffected. Prior to lesion all subjects displayed nearly complete

correct performance for the detection of static contralesional pericentral targets corresponding to the binocular portions (15–45°) of the visual field (Static 15°, 98 ± 1%; 30°, 96 ± 2%; 45°, 93 ± 4% correct detection performance). In contrast, find more peripheral targets presented at monocular visual field eccentricities (60–90°) were detected at more moderate performance rates (Fig. 5; Static 60°, 82 ± 7%; 75°, 69 ± 8%; 90°, 42 ± 10%). A Demeclocycline gradient evolving from pericentral to periphery and extending to the contralesional 15o, 30o, and 45o eccentric locations characterized the spontaneous recovery phase for all visuospatial paradigms (Static 15o, 83 ± 8%; 30o, 58 ± 10%; and 45o, 44 ± 11%). Ipsilesionally, a paradoxical expansion of the visuospatial attention span towards the periphery (60°, from 78 ± 6% to 96 ± 0%; 75°, from 45 ± 8% to 83 ± 0%; and 90°, from 14 ± 4% to 75 ± 0%) was followed by a progressive return to pre-injury correct performance levels (60°, 52 ± 10%; 75°, 19 ± 8%; and 90°, 12 ± 5%) by the end of the spontaneous recovery

period (Fig. 5). Very similar findings were also obtained for the Moving 2 task (data not shown in figure form). Our analysis shows that, prior to rTMS, the spontaneous recovery patterns for Static contralesional targets were not significantly different between Responders and Non-responders. This occurred regardless of the contralesional visual space in either binocular (15°, Responders 97 ± 2% vs. Non-responders 70 ± 13%, P = 0.10; 30°, 68 ± 10 vs. 48 ± 18%, P = 0.40; 45°, 42 ± 1% vs. 47 ± 19%, P = 0.73) or monocular (60°, 17 ± 11% vs. 40 ± 18%, P = 0.18; 75°, 20 ± 16% vs. 17 ± 11%, P = 0.89; 90°, 10 ± 8% vs. 13 ± 13%, P = 0.58; Fig. 6) vision. Very similar findings were also observed for the Moving 2 task (Fig. 7). After seventy sessions of rTMS treatment significant differences between the two subgroups of rTMS-treated animals emerged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>