Priming theta burst stimulation enhances motor cortex plasticity in young but not old adults

Highlights

• Priming theta burst stimulation (TBS) modulates motor plasticity in young subjects.

• Priming with TBS was ineffective at increasing plasticity in elderly adults.

• Priming TBS may not be beneficial in neurological conditions common in the elderly.

Abstract

Background

Primary motor cortex neuroplasticity is reduced in old adults, which may contribute to the motor deficits commonly observed in the elderly. Previous research in young subjects suggests that the neuroplastic response can be enhanced using non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), with a larger plastic response observed following priming with both long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD)-like protocols. However, it is not known if priming stimulation can also modulate plasticity in older adults.

Objective

To investigate if priming NIBS can be used to modulate motor cortical plasticity in old subjects.

Methods

In 16 young (22.3 ± 1.0 years) and 16 old (70.2 ± 1.7 years) subjects, we investigated the response to intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS; LTP-like) when applied 10 min after sham stimulation, continuous TBS (cTBS; LTD-like) or an identical block of iTBS. Corticospinal plasticity was assessed by recording changes in motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude.

Results

In young subjects, priming with cTBS (cTBS + iTBS) resulted in larger MEPs than priming with either iTBS (iTBS + iTBS; P = 0.001) or sham (sham + iTBS; P < 0.0001), while larger MEPs were seen following iTBS + iTBS than sham + iTBS (P < 0.0001). In old subjects, the response to iTBS + iTBS was not different to sham + iTBS (P > 0.9), whereas the response to cTBS + iTBS was reduced relative to iTBS + iTBS (P = 0.02) and sham + iTBS (P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Priming TBS is ineffective for modifying M1 plasticity in older adults, which may limit the therapeutic use of priming stimulation in neurological conditions common in the elderly.

Introduction

It is now well recognised that the neural architecture of the human brain is not static, but instead demonstrates extensive and remarkable flexibility. This flexibility, referred to as neuroplasticity, has been shown to represent a fundamental component of learning and memory [1], [2], in addition to being important for recovery from brain injury or damage [3]. While the mechanisms contributing to neuroplasticity are not fully understood, an extensive body of literature has identified several contributing factors, including alterations to inhibitory neurotransmission [4] and unmasking of latent neuronal pathways [5]. However, animal research has shown that long-term potentiation (LTP) or depression (LTD) of synaptic strength is particularly important (see [6]). These findings have been supported in humans by studies using non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), a technique able to induce and measure LTP- and LTD-like changes within the human brain [7].

Some of the best evidence for the functional importance of neuroplasticity is seen in situations where plasticity is altered. While such changes are often associated with central nervous system damage or pathology [8], [9], [10], they may also be observed in otherwise healthy individuals. For example, several lines of evidence suggest that neuroplastic capacity is reduced by healthy ageing. This includes reports that older adults demonstrate a reduced potentiation of corticospinal excitability following the application of plasticity-inducing NIBS paradigms [11], [12], [13], [14], as well as following a period of motor training [15], [16]. The functional importance of neuroplasticity suggests that this reduced response in older adults may contribute to the motor deficits commonly associated with the ageing process. An improved understanding of age-related reductions in plasticity, as well as the development of interventions able to ameliorate this deficiency, therefore represents an important area of neuroscience research.

The response to a plasticity-inducing paradigm is known to be affected by a number of factors, including time of day, attentional focus and genetics (see [17]). However, one major influence on plasticity induction is the level of previous activity within the area targeted by the intervention [18]. A history of increased synaptic activity within the target area can reduce or even reverse the expected response to a plasticity inducing NIBS paradigm. This type of interaction is referred to as metaplasticity and has been suggested to represent a means of homeostatically moderating changes in synaptic excitability in order to avoid the potentially destabilising influence of run-away potentiation/depression that LTP and LTD are inherently capable of producing (see [19]). However, this mechanism has also formed the basis for interventions aiming to manipulate the plasticity response by first ‘priming’ synapses of the target area. This approach has been studied in young subjects using a number of different NIBS techniques, with the findings suggesting that the resulting neuroplastic modifications are stronger, longer lasting and more stable [20]. However, it is currently unknown if priming stimulation can be used to compensate for age-related reductions in the plasticity response to NIBS interventions.

Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate the efficacy of priming stimulation in healthy elderly adults. This was accomplished by comparing the response to paired blocks of a NIBS protocol (theta burst stimulation, TBS [21]), separated by a 10 min rest period, between young and old adults. In keeping with homeostatic metaplasticity mechanisms, we hypothesised an increase in LTP-like plasticity when the induction protocol was primed by a prior LTD-like plasticity protocol. However, based on previous observations of age-related declines in the response to TBS [13], we also expected that this effect would be reduced in elderly adults.