Extent of Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Plasticity and Its Association With Working Memory in Patients With Alzheimer Disease | Dementia and Cognitive Impairment | JAMA Psychiatry | JAMA Network
[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.  Potentiation of Cortical-Evoked Activity in Alzheimer Disease (AD) and Control Groups
Potentiation of Cortical-Evoked Activity in Alzheimer Disease (AD) and Control Groups

Potentiation of cortical-evoked activity is referred to as paired associative stimulation induction of long-term potentiation (PAS-LTP) at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) site of stimulation, calculated as the ratio of transcranial magnetic stimulation–evoked activity at the DLPFC site before and after a single session of PAS using the scalp electroencephalogram. Circles represent individual values of PAS-LTP; solid lines, medians; and top and bottom borders of the boxes, first and third quartiles.

Figure 2.  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)–Evoked Potential (TEP) at the Site of Stimulation Before and After Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS)
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)–Evoked Potential (TEP) at the Site of Stimulation Before and After Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS)

Graphs depict TEP findings in control and Alzheimer disease (AD) groups recorded with TMS electroencephalography at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex site of stimulation in response to single-pulse TMS. Findings were calculated as the mean across each group of participants (16 control individuals and 32 participants with AD). Pre-PAS and post-PAS are depicted at the time of maximum potentiation. On the x-axis, zero represents the time of TMS pulse.

Figure 3.  Association Between Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) Plasticity and Working Memory Performance
Association Between Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) Plasticity and Working Memory Performance

The correlations between the paired associative stimulation induction of long-term potentiation (PAS-LTP) at the left DLPFC site of stimulation and working memory performance on n-back task in a combined sample of participants with Alzheimer disease (AD) and control individuals. PAS-LTP was calculated as potentiation of cortical-evoked activity, and working memory performance was calculated as the A’ statistic, which is a composite measure of true-positive and false-positive rates. For the 1-back task, 48 participants were included (Pearson r = 0.35; P = .01); for the 2-back task, 44 participants were included (Pearson r = 0.43, P = .003).

Table.  Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of AD and Control Groups
Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of AD and Control Groups
1.
Lafleche  G, Albert  MS.  Executive function deficits in mild Alzheimer’s disease.  Neuropsychology. 1995;9(3):313-320. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.9.3.313Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Perry  RJ, Hodges  JR.  Attention and executive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease: a critical review.  Brain. 1999;122(pt 3):383-404.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Chen  P, Ratcliff  G, Belle  SH, Cauley  JA, DeKosky  ST, Ganguli  M.  Patterns of cognitive decline in presymptomatic Alzheimer disease: a prospective community study.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(9):853-858.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Kaufman  LD, Pratt  J, Levine  B, Black  SE.  Executive deficits detected in mild Alzheimer’s disease using the antisaccade task.  Brain Behav. 2012;2(1):15-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Baddeley  AD, Bressi  S, Della Sala  S, Logie  R, Spinnler  H.  The decline of working memory in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study.  Brain. 1991;114(pt 6):2521-2542.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Huntley  JD, Howard  RJ.  Working memory in early Alzheimer’s disease: a neuropsychological review.  Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25(2):121-132.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Gigi  A, Babai  R, Penker  A, Hendler  T, Korczyn  AD.  Prefrontal compensatory mechanism may enable normal semantic memory performance in mild cognitive impairment (MCI).  J Neuroimaging. 2010;20(2):163-168.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Bookheimer  SY, Strojwas  MH, Cohen  MS,  et al.  Patterns of brain activation in people at risk for Alzheimer’s disease.  N Engl J Med. 2000;343(7):450-456.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Grady  C.  The cognitive neuroscience of ageing.  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(7):491-505.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
van Veluw  SJ, Sawyer  EK, Clover  L,  et al.  Prefrontal cortex cytoarchitecture in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease: a relationship with IQ.  Brain Struct Funct. 2012;217(4):797-808.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Voytek  B, Davis  M, Yago  E, Barceló  F, Vogel  EK, Knight  RT.  Dynamic neuroplasticity after human prefrontal cortex damage.  Neuron. 2010;68(3):401-408.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Grady  CL, McIntosh  AR, Beig  S, Keightley  ML, Burian  H, Black  SE.  Evidence from functional neuroimaging of a compensatory prefrontal network in Alzheimer’s disease.  J Neurosci. 2003;23(3):986-993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Becker  JT, Mintun  MA, Aleva  K, Wiseman  MB, Nichols  T, DeKosky  ST.  Compensatory reallocation of brain resources supporting verbal episodic memory in Alzheimer’s disease.  Neurology. 1996;46(3):692-700.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hebb  DO.  The Organization of Behavior. New York, NY: Wiley; 1949.
15.
Maren  S.  Synaptic mechanisms of associative memory in the amygdala.  Neuron. 2005;47(6):783-786.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Weinberger  NM.  Associative representational plasticity in the auditory cortex: a synthesis of two disciplines.  Learn Mem. 2007;14(1-2):1-16.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Feldman  DE.  Synaptic mechanisms for plasticity in neocortex.  Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:33-55.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
LaBar  KS, Gitelman  DR, Parrish  TB, Mesulam  M.  Neuroanatomic overlap of working memory and spatial attention networks: a functional MRI comparison within subjects.  Neuroimage. 1999;10(6):695-704.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Trachtenberg  JT, Chen  BE, Knott  GW,  et al.  Long-term in vivo imaging of experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in adult cortex.  Nature. 2002;420(6917):788-794.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Holtmaat  A, Wilbrecht  L, Knott  GW, Welker  E, Svoboda  K.  Experience-dependent and cell-type–specific spine growth in the neocortex.  Nature. 2006;441(7096):979-983.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Broser  P, Grinevich  V, Osten  P, Sakmann  B, Wallace  DJ.  Critical period plasticity of axonal arbors of layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons in rat somatosensory cortex: layer-specific reduction of projections into deprived cortical columns.  Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(7):1588-1603.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Ziemann  U, Paulus  W, Nitsche  MA,  et al.  Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols.  Brain Stimul. 2008;1(3):164-182.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Vallence  AM, Ridding  MC.  Non-invasive induction of plasticity in the human cortex: uses and limitations.  Cortex. 2014;58:261-271.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Karabanov  A, Ziemann  U, Hamada  M,  et al.  Consensus paper: probing homeostatic plasticity of human cortex with non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation.  Brain Stimul. 2015;8(5):993-1006.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Huang  YZ, Sommer  M, Thickbroom  G,  et al.  Consensus: new methodologies for brain stimulation.  Brain Stimul. 2009;2(1):2-13.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Stefan  K, Kunesch  E, Cohen  LG, Benecke  R, Classen  J.  Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation.  Brain. 2000;123(pt 3):572-584.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Müller  JF, Orekhov  Y, Liu  Y, Ziemann  U.  Homeostatic plasticity in human motor cortex demonstrated by two consecutive sessions of paired associative stimulation.  Eur J Neurosci. 2007;25(11):3461-3468.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Rajji  TK, Sun  Y, Zomorrodi-Moghaddam  R,  et al.  PAS-induced potentiation of cortical-evoked activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(12):2545-2552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Loheswaran  G, Barr  MS, Zomorrodi  R,  et al.  Impairment of neuroplasticity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex by alcohol.  Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5276.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Donoghue  JP, Parham  C.  Afferent connections of the lateral agranular field of the rat motor cortex.  J Comp Neurol. 1983;217(4):390-404.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Vogt  BA, Miller  MW.  Cortical connections between rat cingulate cortex and visual, motor, and postsubicular cortices.  J Comp Neurol. 1983;216(2):192-210.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Golmayo  L, Nuñez  A, Zaborszky  L.  Electrophysiological evidence for the existence of a posterior cortical-prefrontal-basal forebrain circuitry in modulating sensory responses in visual and somatosensory rat cortical areas.  Neuroscience. 2003;119(2):597-609.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Tanila  H, Carlson  S, Linnankoski  I, Kahila  H.  Regional distribution of functions in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the the monkey.  Behav Brain Res. 1993;53(1-2):63-71.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
García Larrea  L, Bastuji  H, Mauguière  F.  Unmasking of cortical SEP components by changes in stimulus rate: a topographic study.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;84(1):71-83.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Valeriani  M, Restuccia  D, Di Lazzaro  V, Le Pera  D, Tonali  P.  The pathophysiology of giant SEPs in cortical myoclonus: a scalp topography and dipolar source modelling study.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;104(2):122-131.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Koechlin  E, Basso  G, Pietrini  P, Panzer  S, Grafman  J.  The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition.  Nature. 1999;399(6732):148-151.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Smith  EE, Jonides  J.  Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes.  Science. 1999;283(5408):1657-1661.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Fuster  JM.  Cortex and memory: emergence of a new paradigm.  J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(11):2047-2072.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Baddeley  A.  The fractionation of working memory.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(24):13468-13472.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Manoach  DS, Schlaug  G, Siewert  B,  et al.  Prefrontal cortex fMRI signal changes are correlated with working memory load.  Neuroreport. 1997;8(2):545-549.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Engel  AK, Fries  P, Singer  W.  Dynamic predictions: oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing.  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(10):704-716.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Buzsáki  G.  Neural syntax: cell assemblies, synapsembles, and readers.  Neuron. 2010;68(3):362-385.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Battaglia  F, Wang  HY, Ghilardi  MF,  et al.  Cortical plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease in humans and rodents.  Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(12):1405-1412.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Terranova  C, SantAngelo  A, Morgante  F,  et al.  Impairment of sensory-motor plasticity in mild Alzheimer’s disease.  Brain Stimul. 2013;6(1):62-66.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Koch  G, Di Lorenzo  F, Bonnì  S, Ponzo  V, Caltagirone  C, Martorana  A.  Impaired LTP- but not LTD-like cortical plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease patients.  J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;31(3):593-599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Di Lorenzo  F, Ponzo  V, Bonnì  S,  et al.  Long-term potentiation-like cortical plasticity is disrupted in Alzheimer’s disease patients independently from age of onset.  Ann Neurol. 2016;80(2):202-210.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Dubois  B, Feldman  HH, Jacova  C,  et al.  Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria.  Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(8):734-746.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed, text revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
49.
Folstein  MF, Folstein  SE, McHugh  PR.  “Mini-Mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.  J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
First  MB.  Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition. New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2002.
51.
Alexopoulos  GS, Abrams  RC, Young  RC, Shamoian  CA.  Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia.  Biol Psychiatry. 1988;23(3):271-284.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Randolph  C, Tierney  MC, Mohr  E, Chase  TN.  The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity.  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(3):310-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Royall  DR, Mahurin  RK, Gray  KF.  Bedside assessment of executive cognitive impairment: the Executive Interview.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(12):1221-1226.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Gevins  A, Cutillo  B.  Spatiotemporal dynamics of component processes in human working memory.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;87(3):128-143.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Owen  AM, McMillan  KM, Laird  AR, Bullmore  E.  N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25(1):46-59.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Rajji  TK, Zomorrodi  R, Barr  MS, Blumberger  DM, Mulsant  BH, Daskalakis  ZJ.  Ordering information in working memory and modulation of gamma by theta oscillations in humans.  Cereb Cortex. 2017;27(2):1482-1490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Snodgrass  JG, Corwin  J.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia.  J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(1):34-50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Pollack  I, Norman  DA.  A non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments.  Psychon Sci. 1964;1(1):125-126. doi:10.3758/BF03342823Google ScholarCrossref
59.
Daskalakis  ZJ, Farzan  F, Barr  MS, Maller  JJ, Chen  R, Fitzgerald  PB.  Long-interval cortical inhibition from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a TMS-EEG study.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33(12):2860-2869.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Klem  GH, Lüders  HO, Jasper  HH, Elger  C; The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.  The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999;52:3-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Farzan  F, Barr  MS, Wong  W, Chen  R, Fitzgerald  PB, Daskalakis  ZJ.  Suppression of gamma-oscillations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex following long interval cortical inhibition: a TMS-EEG study.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(6):1543-1551.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Ziemann  U, Ilić  TV, Pauli  C, Meintzschel  F, Ruge  D.  Learning modifies subsequent induction of long-term potentiation-like and long-term depression-like plasticity in human motor cortex  [published correction in J Neurosci. 2004;24(46):1].  J Neurosci. 2004;24(7):1666-1672.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Frantseva  MV, Fitzgerald  PB, Chen  R, Möller  B, Daigle  M, Daskalakis  ZJ.  Evidence for impaired long-term potentiation in schizophrenia and its relationship to motor skill learning.  Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(5):990-996.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Kuhn  M, Mainberger  F, Feige  B,  et al.  State-dependent partial occlusion of cortical ltp-like plasticity in major depression.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(6):1521-1529.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Ziemann  U, Muellbacher  W, Hallett  M, Cohen  LG.  Modulation of practice-dependent plasticity in human motor cortex.  Brain. 2001;124(pt 6):1171-1181.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Brem  AK, Atkinson  NJ, Seligson  EE, Pascual-Leone  A.  Differential pharmacological effects on brain reactivity and plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease.  Front Psychiatry. 2013;4:124.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
German  DC, White  CL  III, Sparkman  DR.  Alzheimer’s disease: neurofibrillary tangles in nuclei that project to the cerebral cortex.  Neuroscience. 1987;21(2):305-312.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Malenka  RC, Bear  MF.  LTP and LTD: an embarrassment of riches.  Neuron. 2004;44(1):5-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Malenka  RC, Nicoll  RA.  Long-term potentiation: a decade of progress?  Science. 1999;285(5435):1870-1874.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Kim  SJ, Linden  DJ.  Ubiquitous plasticity and memory storage.  Neuron. 2007;56(4):582-592.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Nardone  R, Tezzon  F, Höller  Y, Golaszewski  S, Trinka  E, Brigo  F.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/repetitive TMS in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease.  Acta Neurol Scand. 2014;129(6):351-366.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Liao  X, Li  G, Wang  A,  et al.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis.  J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;48(2):463-472.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Hsu  WY, Ku  Y, Zanto  TP, Gazzaley  A.  Effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on cognitive function in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Neurobiol Aging. 2015;36(8):2348-2359.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Concerto  C, Babayev  J, Mahmoud  R,  et al.  Modulation of prefrontal cortex with anodal tDCS prevents post-exercise facilitation interference during dual task.  Somatosens Mot Res. 2017;34(2):80-84.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Goutagny  R, Gu  N, Cavanagh  C,  et al.  Alterations in hippocampal network oscillations and theta-gamma coupling arise before Aβ overproduction in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease.  Eur J Neurosci. 2013;37(12):1896-1902.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Nalbantoglu  J, Tirado-Santiago  G, Lahsaïni  A,  et al.  Impaired learning and LTP in mice expressing the carboxy terminus of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein.  Nature. 1997;387(6632):500-505.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Freitas  C, Farzan  F, Pascual-Leone  A.  Assessing brain plasticity across the lifespan with transcranial magnetic stimulation: why, how, and what is the ultimate goal?  Front Neurosci. 2013;7:42.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
Pascual-Leone  A, Freitas  C, Oberman  L,  et al.  Characterizing brain cortical plasticity and network dynamics across the age-span in health and disease with TMS-EEG and TMS-fMRI.  Brain Topogr. 2011;24(3-4):302-315.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
79.
Morley  JE, Farr  SA.  Hormesis and amyloid-β protein: physiology or pathology?  J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;29(3):487-492.PubMedGoogle Scholar
80.
Puzzo  D, Privitera  L, Fa’  M,  et al.  Endogenous amyloid-β is necessary for hippocampal synaptic plasticity and memory.  Ann Neurol. 2011;69(5):819-830.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Buckner  RL, Andrews-Hanna  JR, Schacter  DL.  The brain’s default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:1-38.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Wang  L, Zang  Y, He  Y,  et al.  Changes in hippocampal connectivity in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease: evidence from resting state fMRI.  Neuroimage. 2006;31(2):496-504.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Hafkemeijer  A, van der Grond  J, Rombouts  SA.  Imaging the default mode network in aging and dementia.  Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822(3):431-441.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
84.
Ouchi  Y, Kikuchi  M.  A review of the default mode network in aging and dementia based on molecular imaging.  Rev Neurosci. 2012;23(3):263-268.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
Rizzo  V, Siebner  HS, Morgante  F, Mastroeni  C, Girlanda  P, Quartarone  A.  Paired associative stimulation of left and right human motor cortex shapes interhemispheric motor inhibition based on a Hebbian mechanism.  Cereb Cortex. 2009;19(4):907-915.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
86.
Casula  EP, Pellicciari  MC, Picazio  S, Caltagirone  C, Koch  G.  Spike-timing-dependent plasticity in the human dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex.  Neuroimage. 2016;143:204-213.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
87.
Romei  V, Thut  G, Silvanto  J.  Information-based approaches of noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation.  Trends Neurosci. 2016;39(11):782-795.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Nicoll  RA, Tomita  S, Bredt  DS.  Auxiliary subunits assist AMPA-type glutamate receptors.  Science. 2006;311(5765):1253-1256.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Nitsche  MA, Lampe  C, Antal  A,  et al.  Dopaminergic modulation of long-lasting direct current-induced cortical excitability changes in the human motor cortex.  Eur J Neurosci. 2006;23(6):1651-1657.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
Coyle  JT, Price  DL, DeLong  MR.  Alzheimer’s disease: a disorder of cortical cholinergic innervation.  Science. 1983;219(4589):1184-1190.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Whitehouse  PJ, Price  DL, Struble  RG, Clark  AW, Coyle  JT, Delon  MR.  Alzheimer’s disease and senile dementia: loss of neurons in the basal forebrain.  Science. 1982;215(4537):1237-1239.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
92.
Kuo  M-F, Grosch  J, Fregni  F, Paulus  W, Nitsche  MA.  Focusing effect of acetylcholine on neuroplasticity in the human motor cortex.  J Neurosci. 2007;27(52):14442-14447.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
93.
Esser  SK, Huber  R, Massimini  M, Peterson  MJ, Ferrarelli  F, Tononi  G.  A direct demonstration of cortical LTP in humans: a combined TMS/EEG study.  Brain Res Bull. 2006;69(1):86-94.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
94.
Rabey  JM, Dobronevsky  E, Aichenbaum  S, Gonen  O, Marton  RG, Khaigrekht  M.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, double-blind study.  J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2013;120(5):813-819.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
Ahmed  MA, Darwish  ES, Khedr  EM, El Serogy  YM, Ali  AM.  Effects of low versus high frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function and cortical excitability in Alzheimer’s dementia.  J Neurol. 2012;259(1):83-92.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
96.
Lee  J, Choi  BH, Oh  E, Sohn  EH, Lee  AY.  Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.  J Clin Neurol. 2016;12(1):57-64.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
97.
Brunoni  AR, Vanderhasselt  MA.  Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Brain Cogn. 2014;86:1-9.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
98.
Kim  JH, Kim  DW, Chang  WH, Kim  YH, Im  CH.  Inconsistent outcomes of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be originated from the anatomical differences among individuals: a simulation study using individual MRI data.  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:823-825.PubMedGoogle Scholar
99.
Alagona  G, Bella  R, Ferri  R,  et al.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in Alzheimer disease: motor cortex excitability and cognitive severity.  Neurosci Lett. 2001;314(1-2):57-60.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
100.
Pennisi  G, Alagona  G, Ferri  R,  et al.  Motor cortex excitability in Alzheimer disease: one year follow-up study.  Neurosci Lett. 2002;329(3):293-296.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
101.
Di Lazzaro  V, Oliviero  A, Pilato  F,  et al.  Normal or enhanced short-latency afferent inhibition in Parkinson’s disease?  Brain. 2004;127(Pt 4):E8.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
102.
Ni  Z, Chen  R.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation to understand pathophysiology and as potential treatment for neurodegenerative diseases.  Transl Neurodegener. 2015;4(1):22.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
103.
Schwenkreis  P, Witscher  K, Pleger  B, Malin  JP, Tegenthoff  M.  The NMDA antagonist memantine affects training induced motor cortex plasticity: a study using transcranial magnetic stimulation.  BMC Neurosci. 2005;6:35.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
104.
Kosunen  O, Soininen  H, Paljärvi  L, Heinonen  O, Talasniemi  S, Riekkinen  PJ  Sr.  Diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer’s disease: a neuropathological study.  Acta Neuropathol. 1996;91(2):185-193.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
105.
Lopez  OL, Litvan  I, Catt  KE,  et al.  Accuracy of four clinical diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias.  Neurology. 1999;53(6):1292-1299.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
106.
Kapogiannis  D, Wassermann  EM.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical pharmacology.  Cent Nerv Syst Agents Med Chem. 2008;8(4):234-240.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
107.
Paulus  W, Classen  J, Cohen  LG,  et al.  State of the art: pharmacologic effects on cortical excitability measures tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Brain Stimul. 2008;1(3):151-163.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
December 2017

Extent of Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Plasticity and Its Association With Working Memory in Patients With Alzheimer Disease

Author Affiliations
  • 1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Geriatric Psychiatry Division, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2Campbell Family Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 3Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 4Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Research, the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1266-1274. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3292
Key Points

Question  Is dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plasticity impaired in Alzheimer disease?

Findings  In this cross-sectional study of 32 participants with early Alzheimer disease and 16 healthy control participants, significant deficits in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plasticity were found in participants with Alzheimer disease compared with controls. Working memory performance was also significantly impaired in participants with Alzheimer disease and was associated with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plasticity across both groups.

Meaning  Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plasticity is impaired in Alzheimer disease and is associated with impaired working memory.

Abstract

Importance  The extent of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) plasticity in Alzheimer disease (AD) and its association with working memory are not known.

Objectives  To determine whether participants with AD had impaired DLPFC plasticity compared with healthy control participants, to compare working memory between participants with AD and controls, and to determine whether DLPFC plasticity was associated with working memory.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This cross-sectional study included 32 participants with AD who were 65 years or older and met diagnostic criteria for dementia due to probable AD with a score of at least 17 on the Mini-Mental State Examination and 16 age-matched control participants. Participants were recruited from a university teaching hospital from May 2013 to October 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Plasticity of the DLPFC measured as potentiation of cortical-evoked activity using paired associative stimulation (a combination of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation) combined with electroencephalography. Working memory was assessed with the n-back task (1- and 2-back) and measured using the A’ statistic.

Results  Among the 32 participants with AD, 17 were women and 15 were men (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [6.3] years); among the 16 controls, 8 were men and 8 were women (mean [SD] age, 76.4 [5.1] years). Participants with AD had impaired DLPFC plasticity (mean [SD] potentiation, 1.18 [0.25]) compared with controls (mean [SD] potentiation, 1.40 [0.35]; F1,44 = 5.90; P = .02; between-group comparison, Cohen d = 0.77; P = .01). Participants with AD also had impaired performances on the 1-back condition (mean [SD] A′ = 0.47 [0.30]) compared with controls (mean [SD] A′ = 0.96 [0.01]; Cohen d = 1.86; P < .001), with similar findings for participants with AD on the 2-back condition (mean [SD] A’ = 0.29 [0.2]) compared with controls (mean [SD], A′ = 0.85 [0.18]; Cohen d = 2.83; P < .001). Plasticity of DLPFC was positively associated with working memory performance on the 1-back A′ (parameter estimate B [SE] = 0.32 [0.13]; standardized β = 0.29; P = .02) and 2-back A′ (B [SE] = 0.43 [0.15]; β = 0.39; P = .006) across both groups after controlling for age, education, and attention.

Conclusions and Relevance  This study demonstrated impaired in vivo DLPFC plasticity in patients with AD. The findings support the use of DLPFC plasticity as a measure of DLPFC function and a potential treatment target to enhance DLPFC function and working memory in patients with AD.

Introduction

Pathologic change and dysfunction in the frontal lobes are common in Alzheimer disease (AD) and are present from an early stage of the illness.1-3 In particular, patients with early AD experience dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) dysfunction.4 Dysfunction of the DLPFC is manifested by impairment of working memory and specifically its executive component in early AD.5,6 Furthermore, the DLPFC provides neural substrate for cognitive reserve in individuals at risk for developing AD.7-9 The DLPFC is able to compensate for neuropathologic changes and dysfunction in other regions owing to its ability to experience neuroplasticity.10-13 Thus, understanding the mechanisms that underlie DLPFC dysfunction is important to design effective interventions in patients with AD.

Neuroplasticity refers to the ability of the brain to modify its function or structure in response to experience, use, or pathologic change.14-18 Long-term potentiation (LTP) is a prototype of functional neuroplasticity and refers to use- and time-dependent strengthening of synapses.15,19-21 Paired associative stimulation (PAS) is a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigm that is considered to be a standard in the field to assess LTP-like activity in the human cortex.22-25 Paired associative stimulation induces LTP-like activity (hereafter referred to as PAS-LTP) through the pairing of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (eg, median nerve at the wrist) with TMS of the contralateral cerebral cortex.26,27 Through this pairing, these 2 stimulations occur contemporaneously in the cortex and activate presynaptic and postsynaptic neurons to induce PAS-LTP.26,27 Paired associative stimulation was originally applied to the human motor cortex, and PAS-LTP was assessed through changes in motor-evoked potentials.26 Subsequently, PAS-LTP was shown to be induced in the human DLPFC by combining median nerve stimulation at the wrist with TMS to the contralateral DLPFC and recording changes in the cortical-evoked activity over the DLPFC using scalp electroencephalography (EEG).28,29 The rationale for using median nerve stimulation in combination with DLPFC is based on extensive evidence of connectivity between frontal and somatosensory cortices in rodents30-32 and primates33 and the ability of median nerve stimulation to induce N24 somatosensory-evoked potential in the human DLPFC.34,35

The DLPFC is critical for working memory,36-39 and DLPFC activation correlates with working memory load.40 Working memory is supported by reentrant circuits between the DLPFC and posterior cortices.38 Robust neuroplasticity within the DLPFC is essential to maintain these networks.41,42 Thus, studying DLPFC plasticity is essential for understanding the mechanisms underlying working memory deficits in AD. A few studies have shown impaired motor cortex plasticity in mild to moderate AD.43-46 Some studies showed impaired motor cortex plasticity using PAS,43,44 whereas others used theta burst stimulation.45,46 However, plasticity changes in the DLPFC of patients with AD have not been reported. Thus, we conducted the first study, to our knowledge, to investigate DLPFC plasticity in AD and its association with working memory. The primary aim of this study was to compare PAS-LTP in the DLPFC between participants with AD and age-matched healthy control participants. We hypothesized that PAS-LTP (ie, plasticity) in the DLPFC would be impaired in participants with AD. The secondary aim was to compare working memory between controls and participants with AD and to determine whether PAS-LTP in the DLPFC is associated with working memory performance. We hypothesized that working memory would be significantly associated with PAS-LTP.

Methods

The study was conducted at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The study was approved by the research ethics board of the center, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Participants

Participants with AD were recruited based on referrals from memory clinics in Toronto or in response to advertisements. They were included if they met (1) the core criteria for probable AD according to the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA)47 and (2) the diagnostic criteria for dementia due to probable AD according to the DSM-IV-TR.48 Other key inclusion criteria were a score of 17 or above on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; range, 0-30, with higher scores indicating better performance)49; age of 65 years or older; and treatment with a stable dose of a cognitive enhancer (ie, donepezil hydrochloride, galantamine hydrobromide, memantine hydrochloride, or rivastigmine tartrate) for at least 3 months. Age-matched, right-handed controls were recruited using advertisements and from a database (further eligibility criteria are given in eMethods in the Supplement). On the basis of a previous study of PAS at our center,28 a sample of 32 participants with AD and 16 controls was determined to be needed to provide 80% power at α = .05 to detect a significant difference in DLPFC plasticity between the 2 groups.

Assessments

Data were collected from May 2013 to October 2016. Participants were assessed using the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria,47 the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR,50 Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia,51 MMSE,49 Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status,52 and Executive Interview.53 Working memory performance was assessed using the n-back54,55 following previously published methods.56 In this study, n was 1 or 2 because participants with AD could not generate meaningful data with the 3-back condition. The n-back task was performed immediately before PAS and on the same day. To assess performance accuracy, we used the A′ statistic, which takes into account true-positive and false-positive findings57,58 (eMethods in the Supplement).

DLPFC Localization

Brodmann area 9/46 in the DLPFC was localized through neuronavigation techniques as previously described.59 The DLPFC site of stimulation corresponded to the F3 or F5 EEG electrode (eMethods in the Supplement).

EEG Recording and Data Analysis

The EEG was recorded during the PAS protocol (TMS-EEG) using 64 channels per 10-20 system60 as previously described.59 The EEG data were cleaned using the EEGLAB toolbox (Matlab) and referenced to the mean for further analyses (eMethods in the Supplement).

PAS Administration and Assessment of DLPFC Plasticity

Paired associative stimulation was administered using a published protocol.28 The protocol involved electrical stimulation of the right median nerve at the wrist followed by TMS of the left DLPFC after a 25-millisecond delay. During the procedure, participants were intermittently asked to report their current count of sensory stimuli, which was recorded against the actual count. The absolute difference between the participant’s count and the actual count (count difference) was used as an index of attention during the PAS procedure because attention is known to be critical for PAS-LTP.26,28 Pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity at the DLPFC was indexed using a train of 100 monophasic TMS pulses at 0.1 Hz administered to the left DLPFC using a 7-cm figure-8 coil and a commercially available module (BiStim; Magstim Company Ltd). We used a rectified area under the curve for TMS-evoked potential to calculate cortical-evoked activity, in line with previous publications on TMS-EEG59,61 and DLPFC plasticity.28,29 At 0, 17, and 34 minutes after PAS, cortical-evoked activity was indexed using the same procedures. These times were chosen on the basis of previous research showing the maximum likelihood of potentiation during this interval for motor cortex62,63 and the DLPFC.28,29 We defined PAS-LTP (ie, DLPFC plasticity) as the maximum potentiation of cortical-evoked activity at 1 of these 3 times and measured using the ratio of post-PAS to pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity as in several previous publications on PAS.28,29,64,65 Finally, to show the changes in TMS-evoked response potential before and after PAS in both groups, we plotted the TMS-evoked response potential before and after PAS at the time of maximum potentiation of cortical-evoked activity for each group of participants (eMethods in the Supplement).

Statistical Analysis

First, we compared the demographic and baseline cognitive and neurophysiological variables between participants with AD and controls by using an independent-samples paired t test or χ2 test. Second, to test our primary hypothesis, we performed an analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) with PAS-LTP as the dependent variable, group (AD vs control) as the independent fixed factor, the count difference as a covariate accounting for the potential confounding effect of attention during PAS, and pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity as another covariate accounting for baseline excitability (which can affect response to PAS). Then, we performed 2 additional ANCOVAs, one using the 1-back A′ and the second using the 2-back A′ as dependent variables, group (AD vs control) as the independent fixed factor, and educational attainment as a covariate potentially confounding differences in working memory performance between participants with AD and controls. Finally, we performed 2 multivariable regression models, the first using the 1-back A′ and the second using the 2-back A′ as dependent variables, with age, educational attainment, count difference, and PAS-LTP entered simultaneously as the independent variables. The Cohen d statistic was used to estimate effect sizes when appropriate. All analyses were performed using SPSS Statistical software for Windows (version 24.0; IBM).

Results
Demographic and Baseline Characteristics

Thirty-two participants with AD (17 women and 15 men; mean [SD] age, 76.3 [6.3] years) and 16 controls (8 men and 8 women; mean [SD] age, 76.4 [5.1] years) completed the assessments and were included in the analysis. We found no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in age or sex. Participants with AD had lower educational attainment, MMSE scores, and Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status scores and a higher count difference during PAS than did controls. The 2 groups did not differ in baseline neurophysiologic measures, including resting motor threshold and baseline pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity (Table).

Paired Associative Stimulation–Long-term Potentiation

Increases in cortical-evoked activity (ie, PAS-LTP) in the left DLPFC as demonstrated by a mean (SD) post-PAS to pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity ratio of greater than 1.00 were experienced by participants with AD (1.18 [0.25]; t31 = 3.95; P < .001) and controls (1.40 [0.35]; t15 = 4.7; P < .001). We found a significant association of group with PAS-LTP (F1,44 = 5.90; P = .02); when controlling for pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity (F1,44 = 0.28; P = .60) and count difference (F1,44 = 0.02; P = .88), both of which had no influence on PAS-LTP, participants with AD experienced significantly less PAS-LTP than did controls (Cohen d = 0.77; P = .01). This finding was also revealed when plotting the TMS-evoked response potential before and after PAS for participants with AD and controls (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Working Memory

As expected, we found a significant association of presence of AD with working memory using the 1-back A′ (F1,45 = 32.6; P < .001) and the 2-back A′ (F1,41 = 69.9; P < .001); controlling for educational attainment had no influence on the 1-back A′ (F1,45 = 1.7; P = .19) or the 2-back A′ (F1,41 = 0.36; P = .55). Participants with AD had impaired working memory performance on the 1-back condition (mean [SD] A′ = 0.47 [0.30]) compared with controls (mean [SD] A′ = 0.96 [0.01]; Cohen d = 1.86; P < .001), with similar findings for participants with AD on the 2-back condition (mean [SD] A′ = 0.29 [0.20]) compared with controls (mean [SD] A′ = 0.85 [0.18]; Cohen d = 2.83; P < .001).

Association Between PAS-LTP and Working Memory Performance

Finally, PAS-LTP was associated with working memory performance in both groups on the 1-back A′ (parameter estimate B [SE] = 0.32 [0.13]; standardized β = 0.29; P = .02) and the 2-back A′ (B [SE] = 0.43 [0.15]; β = 0.39; P = .006) after controlling for age, educational attainment, and count difference. Figure 3 shows the raw data demonstrating the correlation between working memory and PAS-LTP. Educational attainment was associated with working memory performance on the 1-back A′ (B [SE] = 0.04 [0.01]; β = 0.38; P = .002) and 2-back A′ (B [SE] = 0.03 [0.01]; β = 0.31; P = .03). Attention was also associated with working memory performance on the 1-back A′ (B [SE] = −0.006 [0.002]; β = −0.46; P < .001) and 2-back A′ (B [SE] = −0.004 [0.002]; β = −0.28; P = .04), but age was not.

Discussion

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to provide evidence of DLPFC plasticity deficits in patients with AD using TMS-EEG to assess PAS-LTP. To our knowledge, this study also demonstrates for the first time, to our knowledge, an association between DLPFC plasticity and working memory. These findings extend current knowledge on neuroplasticity deficits in AD.43,45,66 Assessing plasticity directly from the DLPFC using TMS-EEG has several advantages. First and notwithstanding the possibility that deficits in DLPFC plasticity may be an upstream effect of subcortical pathologic changes in regions such as the locus ceruleus and dorsal raphe nuclei,67 TMS-EEG allows the development of a direct marker of DLPFC plasticity rather than more peripheral markers (eg, motor-evoked potential or serum markers of neuroplasticity). Second, the feasibility of this procedure in patients with AD makes it possible to study mechanisms underlying cognitive dysfunction in AD. Robust synaptic plasticity is critical for cognitive processes such as learning and memory,68-70 and impaired plasticity could be the final common neurophysiologic mechanism for cognitive deficits of AD. Third, DLPFC plasticity could be a potential target to enhance cognition with interventions such as transcranial direct-current or magnetic stimulation.71-73 Noninvasive DLPFC stimulation may also positively affect plasticitylike phenomena in the motor cortex and have positive effects beyond cognition separate from plasticity.74

The mechanisms by which AD pathologic changes could specifically impair neuroplasticity remain unclear. A reciprocal association between DLPFC plasticity and brain pathologic features in AD may exist.75-78 Furthermore, synaptic dysfunction could lead to a vicious cycle of aberrant neuroplasticity and amyloid deposition, resulting in progression of AD.18 In contrast, several studies have shown a positive role of low levels of endogenous amyloid in maintaining neuroplasticity79,80; thus, the interaction between amyloid and neuroplasticity is complex. Impaired neuroplasticity could also be associated with network dysfunction in AD.81,82 Impairment of default mode network activity is well known in AD and is associated with increased amyloid deposition and cognitive decline.83,84 Thus, future studies should assess the association of neuroplasticity with network dysfunction in AD using techniques such as corticocortical PAS.85-87 The effect of synaptic and neuronal loss on neuroplasticity should be investigated by combining studies of neuroplasticity with markers of neural integrity in vivo or by studying the association between neuroplasticity and postmortem brain pathologic changes in AD.

Long-term potentiation depends on intact glutamate signaling at the synapses.69,88 However, the association between glutamate receptor dysfunction and neuroplasticity in AD is not well understood. Similarly, the association of other neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, with neuroplasticity in AD is not well understood.89 Deficits in acetylcholine signaling are considered to be a hallmark of AD, but the association of acetylcholine with neuroplasticity in AD is not fully known.90-92 Thus, future studies should use magnetic resonance spectroscopy or positron emission tomographic imaging to study neurotransmitter systems in conjunction with PAS.

We also found an association between DLPFC plasticity and working memory in participants with AD and controls. This association seems to be partially driven by differences in distributions of working memory performance and DLPFC plasticity in participants with AD and controls. Although this finding supports the association between DLPFC plasticity and working memory, future research should include participants with mild cognitive impairment whose performance and DLPFC plasticity would be expected to range between that of AD and control groups. In addition, future studies could assess the association between DLPFC plasticity and other cognitive or functional measures in AD. Finally, noninvasive brain stimulation has been shown to enhance motor cortex plasticity93 and cognitive function in AD.71-73,94-96 A recent meta-analysis of 7 studies including 94 patients with mild to moderate AD72 showed that repetitive TMS of the bilateral DLPFC was associated with improved cognitive function. These studies did not investigate the effect of repetitive TMS on DLPFC plasticity. Notwithstanding an overall positive effect, some studies97,98 have shown variability in results for DLPFC noninvasive brain stimulation to enhance working memory. Thus, future studies should consider assessment of DLPFC plasticity and working memory before and after the intervention.

Some differences between the existing literature and the results of our study should be noted. Several studies99-101 have found decreased resting motor threshold and increased cortical excitability in AD. We found no differences in resting motor threshold between the AD and control groups in our study. This finding could be attributable to the relatively milder illness in the participants with AD in our study.99,100,102 One study99 reported an association between motor threshold and severity of illness in AD. We did not find any difference in baseline DLPFC cortical-evoked activity between the AD and control groups in our study. Furthermore, cortical excitability was not associated with PAS-LTP in our study, which suggests that DLPFC plasticity deficits may occur before changes in cortical excitability.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, although the sample size was defined a priori, it was relatively small, which limited our ability to conduct subgroup analyses (eg, based on sex or medications). However, the sample size was sufficient to detect DLPFC plasticity deficits because of the moderate to large effect size that we observed. One study has shown that combined treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine may restore motor cortex plasticity in AD,66 whereas another study103 has shown that memantine may block motor cortex plasticity in healthy individuals. Only 2 participants with AD in our study were using memantine, and thus it is unlikely to have caused a meaningful effect on our results. Second, the diagnosis of AD in our study was based on clinical assessment and did not incorporate pathologic markers of AD (eg, amyloid or tau imaging). However, a clinical diagnosis of AD based on the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria has been shown to be highly reliable.104,105 Third, we did not correct for coil-to-cortex distance in determining TMS intensity of stimulation. However, we individualized the intensity of stimulation by assessing resting motor threshold and TMS intensity required to produce a 1-mV motor-evoked potential; this procedure is expected to adjust for cortical atrophy. Furthermore, our measure of plasticity (ie, PAS-LTP) is a ratio of post-PAS to pre-PAS cortical-evoked activity, which controls for baseline cortical-evoked activity. Fourth, to remove the TMS artifact, we excluded early TMS-evoked activity (first 50 milliseconds), which could have excluded early glutamate-mediated activity.106,107

Conclusions

We found that older patients with AD have impaired DLPFC plasticity compared with healthy older individuals, and impaired DLPFC plasticity is associated with impairment in working memory. Improving our understanding of the association between DLPFC plasticity and working memory may advance our understanding of neurophysiologic mechanisms underlying working memory deficits in AD. Ultimately, this process may lead to novel treatment interventions to treat or prevent the cognitive deficits of AD. Future studies are now needed to further define the association of DLPFC plasticity with other biomarkers from functional brain imaging, amyloid and tau brain imaging, peripheral and central neurotransmitter studies, and postmortem pathologic studies. Finally, longitudinal studies of DLPFC plasticity in response to treatment interventions are required to demonstrate its relevance as a treatment target in AD and related disorders.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Tarek K. Rajji, MD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Geriatric Psychiatry Division, 80 Workman Way, Toronto, ON M6J 1H4, Canada (tarek.rajji@camh.ca).

Accepted for Publication: September 4, 2017.

Published Online: October 25, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3292

Author Contributions: Drs Kumar and Rajji had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Kumar, Blumberger, Daskalakis, Mulsant, Rajji.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Kumar, Zomorrodi, Ghazala, Goodman, Blumberger, Cheam, Fischer, Mulsant, Pollock, Rajji.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kumar, Rajji.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Kumar, Ghazala, Goodman, Cheam, Daskalakis, Rajji.

Obtained funding: Pollock, Rajji.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Kumar, Zomorrodi, Ghazala, Goodman, Blumberger, Daskalakis, Pollock, Rajji.

Study supervision: Blumberger, Fischer, Rajji.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Blumberger reports receiving research support and in-kind equipment support for an investigator-initiated study from Brainsway, Ltd; serving as the site principal investigator for 3 sponsor-initiated studies for Brainsway, Ltd; receiving in-kind equipment support from Magventure, Inc, for an investigator-initiated study; and receiving medication supplies for an investigator-initiated trial from Indivior. Dr Fischer reports participating in peer-reviewed research involving a commercial device designed to treat Alzheimer disease manufactured by Vieight. Dr Daskalakis reports receiving research and equipment in-kind support for an investigator-initiated study through Brainsway, Ltd, and Magventure, Inc, in the past 3 years and receiving monies for participation on an advisory board from Sunovion, Inc. Dr Mulsant reports receiving current research support from HAPPYneuron (software used in a study funded by Brain Canada); receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb (medications for a National Institutes of Health [NIH]–funded clinical trial), Eli Lilly and Company (medications for an NIH-funded clinical trial), and Pfizer (medications for an NIH-funded clinical trial) within the past 5 years; and directly owning stocks of General Electric (less than $5000). No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant RR120070 from Weston Brain Institute (Dr Rajji); in part by the Canada Research Chairs program (Dr Rajji); research support from Canada Foundation for Innovation (Dr Rajji); a fellowship award from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) (Dr Kumar); and in kind support from Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention at CAMH.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors did not have any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Lafleche  G, Albert  MS.  Executive function deficits in mild Alzheimer’s disease.  Neuropsychology. 1995;9(3):313-320. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.9.3.313Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Perry  RJ, Hodges  JR.  Attention and executive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease: a critical review.  Brain. 1999;122(pt 3):383-404.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Chen  P, Ratcliff  G, Belle  SH, Cauley  JA, DeKosky  ST, Ganguli  M.  Patterns of cognitive decline in presymptomatic Alzheimer disease: a prospective community study.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(9):853-858.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Kaufman  LD, Pratt  J, Levine  B, Black  SE.  Executive deficits detected in mild Alzheimer’s disease using the antisaccade task.  Brain Behav. 2012;2(1):15-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Baddeley  AD, Bressi  S, Della Sala  S, Logie  R, Spinnler  H.  The decline of working memory in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study.  Brain. 1991;114(pt 6):2521-2542.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Huntley  JD, Howard  RJ.  Working memory in early Alzheimer’s disease: a neuropsychological review.  Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25(2):121-132.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Gigi  A, Babai  R, Penker  A, Hendler  T, Korczyn  AD.  Prefrontal compensatory mechanism may enable normal semantic memory performance in mild cognitive impairment (MCI).  J Neuroimaging. 2010;20(2):163-168.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Bookheimer  SY, Strojwas  MH, Cohen  MS,  et al.  Patterns of brain activation in people at risk for Alzheimer’s disease.  N Engl J Med. 2000;343(7):450-456.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Grady  C.  The cognitive neuroscience of ageing.  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(7):491-505.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
van Veluw  SJ, Sawyer  EK, Clover  L,  et al.  Prefrontal cortex cytoarchitecture in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease: a relationship with IQ.  Brain Struct Funct. 2012;217(4):797-808.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Voytek  B, Davis  M, Yago  E, Barceló  F, Vogel  EK, Knight  RT.  Dynamic neuroplasticity after human prefrontal cortex damage.  Neuron. 2010;68(3):401-408.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Grady  CL, McIntosh  AR, Beig  S, Keightley  ML, Burian  H, Black  SE.  Evidence from functional neuroimaging of a compensatory prefrontal network in Alzheimer’s disease.  J Neurosci. 2003;23(3):986-993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Becker  JT, Mintun  MA, Aleva  K, Wiseman  MB, Nichols  T, DeKosky  ST.  Compensatory reallocation of brain resources supporting verbal episodic memory in Alzheimer’s disease.  Neurology. 1996;46(3):692-700.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hebb  DO.  The Organization of Behavior. New York, NY: Wiley; 1949.
15.
Maren  S.  Synaptic mechanisms of associative memory in the amygdala.  Neuron. 2005;47(6):783-786.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Weinberger  NM.  Associative representational plasticity in the auditory cortex: a synthesis of two disciplines.  Learn Mem. 2007;14(1-2):1-16.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Feldman  DE.  Synaptic mechanisms for plasticity in neocortex.  Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:33-55.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
LaBar  KS, Gitelman  DR, Parrish  TB, Mesulam  M.  Neuroanatomic overlap of working memory and spatial attention networks: a functional MRI comparison within subjects.  Neuroimage. 1999;10(6):695-704.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Trachtenberg  JT, Chen  BE, Knott  GW,  et al.  Long-term in vivo imaging of experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in adult cortex.  Nature. 2002;420(6917):788-794.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Holtmaat  A, Wilbrecht  L, Knott  GW, Welker  E, Svoboda  K.  Experience-dependent and cell-type–specific spine growth in the neocortex.  Nature. 2006;441(7096):979-983.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Broser  P, Grinevich  V, Osten  P, Sakmann  B, Wallace  DJ.  Critical period plasticity of axonal arbors of layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons in rat somatosensory cortex: layer-specific reduction of projections into deprived cortical columns.  Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(7):1588-1603.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Ziemann  U, Paulus  W, Nitsche  MA,  et al.  Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols.  Brain Stimul. 2008;1(3):164-182.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Vallence  AM, Ridding  MC.  Non-invasive induction of plasticity in the human cortex: uses and limitations.  Cortex. 2014;58:261-271.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Karabanov  A, Ziemann  U, Hamada  M,  et al.  Consensus paper: probing homeostatic plasticity of human cortex with non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation.  Brain Stimul. 2015;8(5):993-1006.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Huang  YZ, Sommer  M, Thickbroom  G,  et al.  Consensus: new methodologies for brain stimulation.  Brain Stimul. 2009;2(1):2-13.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Stefan  K, Kunesch  E, Cohen  LG, Benecke  R, Classen  J.  Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation.  Brain. 2000;123(pt 3):572-584.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Müller  JF, Orekhov  Y, Liu  Y, Ziemann  U.  Homeostatic plasticity in human motor cortex demonstrated by two consecutive sessions of paired associative stimulation.  Eur J Neurosci. 2007;25(11):3461-3468.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Rajji  TK, Sun  Y, Zomorrodi-Moghaddam  R,  et al.  PAS-induced potentiation of cortical-evoked activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(12):2545-2552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Loheswaran  G, Barr  MS, Zomorrodi  R,  et al.  Impairment of neuroplasticity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex by alcohol.  Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5276.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Donoghue  JP, Parham  C.  Afferent connections of the lateral agranular field of the rat motor cortex.  J Comp Neurol. 1983;217(4):390-404.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Vogt  BA, Miller  MW.  Cortical connections between rat cingulate cortex and visual, motor, and postsubicular cortices.  J Comp Neurol. 1983;216(2):192-210.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Golmayo  L, Nuñez  A, Zaborszky  L.  Electrophysiological evidence for the existence of a posterior cortical-prefrontal-basal forebrain circuitry in modulating sensory responses in visual and somatosensory rat cortical areas.  Neuroscience. 2003;119(2):597-609.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Tanila  H, Carlson  S, Linnankoski  I, Kahila  H.  Regional distribution of functions in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the the monkey.  Behav Brain Res. 1993;53(1-2):63-71.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
García Larrea  L, Bastuji  H, Mauguière  F.  Unmasking of cortical SEP components by changes in stimulus rate: a topographic study.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;84(1):71-83.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Valeriani  M, Restuccia  D, Di Lazzaro  V, Le Pera  D, Tonali  P.  The pathophysiology of giant SEPs in cortical myoclonus: a scalp topography and dipolar source modelling study.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;104(2):122-131.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Koechlin  E, Basso  G, Pietrini  P, Panzer  S, Grafman  J.  The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition.  Nature. 1999;399(6732):148-151.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Smith  EE, Jonides  J.  Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes.  Science. 1999;283(5408):1657-1661.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Fuster  JM.  Cortex and memory: emergence of a new paradigm.  J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(11):2047-2072.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Baddeley  A.  The fractionation of working memory.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(24):13468-13472.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Manoach  DS, Schlaug  G, Siewert  B,  et al.  Prefrontal cortex fMRI signal changes are correlated with working memory load.  Neuroreport. 1997;8(2):545-549.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Engel  AK, Fries  P, Singer  W.  Dynamic predictions: oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing.  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(10):704-716.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Buzsáki  G.  Neural syntax: cell assemblies, synapsembles, and readers.  Neuron. 2010;68(3):362-385.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Battaglia  F, Wang  HY, Ghilardi  MF,  et al.  Cortical plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease in humans and rodents.  Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(12):1405-1412.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Terranova  C, SantAngelo  A, Morgante  F,  et al.  Impairment of sensory-motor plasticity in mild Alzheimer’s disease.  Brain Stimul. 2013;6(1):62-66.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Koch  G, Di Lorenzo  F, Bonnì  S, Ponzo  V, Caltagirone  C, Martorana  A.  Impaired LTP- but not LTD-like cortical plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease patients.  J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;31(3):593-599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Di Lorenzo  F, Ponzo  V, Bonnì  S,  et al.  Long-term potentiation-like cortical plasticity is disrupted in Alzheimer’s disease patients independently from age of onset.  Ann Neurol. 2016;80(2):202-210.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Dubois  B, Feldman  HH, Jacova  C,  et al.  Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria.  Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(8):734-746.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
American Psychiatric Association.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed, text revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
49.
Folstein  MF, Folstein  SE, McHugh  PR.  “Mini-Mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.  J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
First  MB.  Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition. New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2002.
51.
Alexopoulos  GS, Abrams  RC, Young  RC, Shamoian  CA.  Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia.  Biol Psychiatry. 1988;23(3):271-284.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Randolph  C, Tierney  MC, Mohr  E, Chase  TN.  The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity.  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(3):310-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Royall  DR, Mahurin  RK, Gray  KF.  Bedside assessment of executive cognitive impairment: the Executive Interview.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(12):1221-1226.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Gevins  A, Cutillo  B.  Spatiotemporal dynamics of component processes in human working memory.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;87(3):128-143.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Owen  AM, McMillan  KM, Laird  AR, Bullmore  E.  N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25(1):46-59.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Rajji  TK, Zomorrodi  R, Barr  MS, Blumberger  DM, Mulsant  BH, Daskalakis  ZJ.  Ordering information in working memory and modulation of gamma by theta oscillations in humans.  Cereb Cortex. 2017;27(2):1482-1490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Snodgrass  JG, Corwin  J.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia.  J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(1):34-50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Pollack  I, Norman  DA.  A non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments.  Psychon Sci. 1964;1(1):125-126. doi:10.3758/BF03342823Google ScholarCrossref
59.
Daskalakis  ZJ, Farzan  F, Barr  MS, Maller  JJ, Chen  R, Fitzgerald  PB.  Long-interval cortical inhibition from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a TMS-EEG study.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33(12):2860-2869.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Klem  GH, Lüders  HO, Jasper  HH, Elger  C; The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.  The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999;52:3-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Farzan  F, Barr  MS, Wong  W, Chen  R, Fitzgerald  PB, Daskalakis  ZJ.  Suppression of gamma-oscillations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex following long interval cortical inhibition: a TMS-EEG study.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(6):1543-1551.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Ziemann  U, Ilić  TV, Pauli  C, Meintzschel  F, Ruge  D.  Learning modifies subsequent induction of long-term potentiation-like and long-term depression-like plasticity in human motor cortex  [published correction in J Neurosci. 2004;24(46):1].  J Neurosci. 2004;24(7):1666-1672.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Frantseva  MV, Fitzgerald  PB, Chen  R, Möller  B, Daigle  M, Daskalakis  ZJ.  Evidence for impaired long-term potentiation in schizophrenia and its relationship to motor skill learning.  Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(5):990-996.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Kuhn  M, Mainberger  F, Feige  B,  et al.  State-dependent partial occlusion of cortical ltp-like plasticity in major depression.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(6):1521-1529.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Ziemann  U, Muellbacher  W, Hallett  M, Cohen  LG.  Modulation of practice-dependent plasticity in human motor cortex.  Brain. 2001;124(pt 6):1171-1181.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Brem  AK, Atkinson  NJ, Seligson  EE, Pascual-Leone  A.  Differential pharmacological effects on brain reactivity and plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease.  Front Psychiatry. 2013;4:124.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
German  DC, White  CL  III, Sparkman  DR.  Alzheimer’s disease: neurofibrillary tangles in nuclei that project to the cerebral cortex.  Neuroscience. 1987;21(2):305-312.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Malenka  RC, Bear  MF.  LTP and LTD: an embarrassment of riches.  Neuron. 2004;44(1):5-21.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Malenka  RC, Nicoll  RA.  Long-term potentiation: a decade of progress?  Science. 1999;285(5435):1870-1874.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Kim  SJ, Linden  DJ.  Ubiquitous plasticity and memory storage.  Neuron. 2007;56(4):582-592.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Nardone  R, Tezzon  F, Höller  Y, Golaszewski  S, Trinka  E, Brigo  F.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/repetitive TMS in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease.  Acta Neurol Scand. 2014;129(6):351-366.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Liao  X, Li  G, Wang  A,  et al.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative therapy for cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis.  J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;48(2):463-472.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Hsu  WY, Ku  Y, Zanto  TP, Gazzaley  A.  Effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on cognitive function in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Neurobiol Aging. 2015;36(8):2348-2359.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Concerto  C, Babayev  J, Mahmoud  R,  et al.  Modulation of prefrontal cortex with anodal tDCS prevents post-exercise facilitation interference during dual task.  Somatosens Mot Res. 2017;34(2):80-84.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Goutagny  R, Gu  N, Cavanagh  C,  et al.  Alterations in hippocampal network oscillations and theta-gamma coupling arise before Aβ overproduction in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease.  Eur J Neurosci. 2013;37(12):1896-1902.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Nalbantoglu  J, Tirado-Santiago  G, Lahsaïni  A,  et al.  Impaired learning and LTP in mice expressing the carboxy terminus of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein.  Nature. 1997;387(6632):500-505.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Freitas  C, Farzan  F, Pascual-Leone  A.  Assessing brain plasticity across the lifespan with transcranial magnetic stimulation: why, how, and what is the ultimate goal?  Front Neurosci. 2013;7:42.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
Pascual-Leone  A, Freitas  C, Oberman  L,  et al.  Characterizing brain cortical plasticity and network dynamics across the age-span in health and disease with TMS-EEG and TMS-fMRI.  Brain Topogr. 2011;24(3-4):302-315.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
79.
Morley  JE, Farr  SA.  Hormesis and amyloid-β protein: physiology or pathology?  J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;29(3):487-492.PubMedGoogle Scholar
80.
Puzzo  D, Privitera  L, Fa’  M,  et al.  Endogenous amyloid-β is necessary for hippocampal synaptic plasticity and memory.  Ann Neurol. 2011;69(5):819-830.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Buckner  RL, Andrews-Hanna  JR, Schacter  DL.  The brain’s default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:1-38.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Wang  L, Zang  Y, He  Y,  et al.  Changes in hippocampal connectivity in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease: evidence from resting state fMRI.  Neuroimage. 2006;31(2):496-504.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Hafkemeijer  A, van der Grond  J, Rombouts  SA.  Imaging the default mode network in aging and dementia.  Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822(3):431-441.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
84.
Ouchi  Y, Kikuchi  M.  A review of the default mode network in aging and dementia based on molecular imaging.  Rev Neurosci. 2012;23(3):263-268.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
Rizzo  V, Siebner  HS, Morgante  F, Mastroeni  C, Girlanda  P, Quartarone  A.  Paired associative stimulation of left and right human motor cortex shapes interhemispheric motor inhibition based on a Hebbian mechanism.  Cereb Cortex. 2009;19(4):907-915.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
86.
Casula  EP, Pellicciari  MC, Picazio  S, Caltagirone  C, Koch  G.  Spike-timing-dependent plasticity in the human dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex.  Neuroimage. 2016;143:204-213.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
87.
Romei  V, Thut  G, Silvanto  J.  Information-based approaches of noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation.  Trends Neurosci. 2016;39(11):782-795.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Nicoll  RA, Tomita  S, Bredt  DS.  Auxiliary subunits assist AMPA-type glutamate receptors.  Science. 2006;311(5765):1253-1256.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Nitsche  MA, Lampe  C, Antal  A,  et al.  Dopaminergic modulation of long-lasting direct current-induced cortical excitability changes in the human motor cortex.  Eur J Neurosci. 2006;23(6):1651-1657.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
Coyle  JT, Price  DL, DeLong  MR.  Alzheimer’s disease: a disorder of cortical cholinergic innervation.  Science. 1983;219(4589):1184-1190.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Whitehouse  PJ, Price  DL, Struble  RG, Clark  AW, Coyle  JT, Delon  MR.  Alzheimer’s disease and senile dementia: loss of neurons in the basal forebrain.  Science. 1982;215(4537):1237-1239.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
92.
Kuo  M-F, Grosch  J, Fregni  F, Paulus  W, Nitsche  MA.  Focusing effect of acetylcholine on neuroplasticity in the human motor cortex.  J Neurosci. 2007;27(52):14442-14447.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
93.
Esser  SK, Huber  R, Massimini  M, Peterson  MJ, Ferrarelli  F, Tononi  G.  A direct demonstration of cortical LTP in humans: a combined TMS/EEG study.  Brain Res Bull. 2006;69(1):86-94.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
94.
Rabey  JM, Dobronevsky  E, Aichenbaum  S, Gonen  O, Marton  RG, Khaigrekht  M.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, double-blind study.  J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2013;120(5):813-819.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
Ahmed  MA, Darwish  ES, Khedr  EM, El Serogy  YM, Ali  AM.  Effects of low versus high frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function and cortical excitability in Alzheimer’s dementia.  J Neurol. 2012;259(1):83-92.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
96.
Lee  J, Choi  BH, Oh  E, Sohn  EH, Lee  AY.  Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with cognitive training: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.  J Clin Neurol. 2016;12(1):57-64.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
97.
Brunoni  AR, Vanderhasselt  MA.  Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Brain Cogn. 2014;86:1-9.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
98.
Kim  JH, Kim  DW, Chang  WH, Kim  YH, Im  CH.  Inconsistent outcomes of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be originated from the anatomical differences among individuals: a simulation study using individual MRI data.  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:823-825.PubMedGoogle Scholar
99.
Alagona  G, Bella  R, Ferri  R,  et al.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in Alzheimer disease: motor cortex excitability and cognitive severity.  Neurosci Lett. 2001;314(1-2):57-60.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
100.
Pennisi  G, Alagona  G, Ferri  R,  et al.  Motor cortex excitability in Alzheimer disease: one year follow-up study.  Neurosci Lett. 2002;329(3):293-296.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
101.
Di Lazzaro  V, Oliviero  A, Pilato  F,  et al.  Normal or enhanced short-latency afferent inhibition in Parkinson’s disease?  Brain. 2004;127(Pt 4):E8.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
102.
Ni  Z, Chen  R.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation to understand pathophysiology and as potential treatment for neurodegenerative diseases.  Transl Neurodegener. 2015;4(1):22.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
103.
Schwenkreis  P, Witscher  K, Pleger  B, Malin  JP, Tegenthoff  M.  The NMDA antagonist memantine affects training induced motor cortex plasticity: a study using transcranial magnetic stimulation.  BMC Neurosci. 2005;6:35.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
104.
Kosunen  O, Soininen  H, Paljärvi  L, Heinonen  O, Talasniemi  S, Riekkinen  PJ  Sr.  Diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer’s disease: a neuropathological study.  Acta Neuropathol. 1996;91(2):185-193.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
105.
Lopez  OL, Litvan  I, Catt  KE,  et al.  Accuracy of four clinical diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias.  Neurology. 1999;53(6):1292-1299.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
106.
Kapogiannis  D, Wassermann  EM.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical pharmacology.  Cent Nerv Syst Agents Med Chem. 2008;8(4):234-240.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
107.
Paulus  W, Classen  J, Cohen  LG,  et al.  State of the art: pharmacologic effects on cortical excitability measures tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation.  Brain Stimul. 2008;1(3):151-163.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×