1A2). Neuronavigation (Brainsight, Rogue PD0332991 mw Research, Inc., Rogue Resolutions Ltd, Cardiff, UK) was used for precise positioning of the coil over the PMv. Magnetic resonance imaging data specific to each participant were used to ensure correct placement of the coil, which was placed over the caudal portion of the pars opercularis of the inferior frontal gyrus (Davare et al., 2006). Each individual magnetic resonance image was normalized,

a posteriori, onto the Montreal Neurological Institute brain template using the same software. PMv stimulation coordinates were then expressed with respect to the Montreal Neurological Institute standard space. The mean normalized Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates of the PMv stimulation sites were (x, y, z; mean ± SD in mm): (−59.0 ± 2.5, −2.1 ± 9.8, 7.6 ± 4.9) in controls and (−60.4 ± 3.8, −1.5 ± 8.0, 9.5 ± 4.0) in FHD. These two mean coordinates belong to BA6 according to the Talairach atlas (see Fig. 1). This confirmed that the conditioning coil was targeting the PMv in both groups. The positions of the two coils were marked on a tight-fitting cap to ensure proper coil placement throughout the experiment. The experiment was conducted in two parts (parts 1 and 2). Part 1 aimed at assessing SI. Single TMS

pulses were delivered over the motor hotspot at an intensity of 140% RMTAPB in four different conditions, in a random order: at rest, T100, T50,Tpeak and a condition in which no stimulation was given. In order to be able to randomize the order selleck of the different phases, rest stimulation Thalidomide was given 100 ms before the acoustic tone (Fig. 1B). Two blocks of 45 stimuli were recorded, resulting in 18 MEPs for each condition. Part 2 consisted of a paired-pulse paradigm designed to assess the effect of a conditioning stimulation over the PMv on the excitability of the M1. The conditioning stimulus was applied at 80% RMTAPB at an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 6 ms (Davare

et al., 2008). The test stimulus was applied over the motor hotspot at an intensity set to evoke an MEP of 1 mV over the APB, at rest. Due to spatial interference of the two coils, the conditioning coil was placed directly on the skull, whereas the test pulse coil over the motor hotspot was slightly elevated. Four separate paired-pulse blocks were conducted for each subject: at rest, with the test pulse stimulating the M1 at T100, with the test pulse at T50 and with the test pulse at Tpeak. Thirty stimuli were applied for each of the four blocks (15 conditioned and 15 unconditioned stimuli). During TMS recording, electromyography from the ABP was monitored. The APB is not involved in the task and therefore remained relaxed throughout the entire experiment. Trials in which there was background electromyography > 0.02 mV in the APB, assessed as root mean square over 50 ms prior to MEP onset in each phase, were rejected.