Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025

EEG Mu Rhythm in Typical and Atypical Development
Published on: April 9, 2014
Does pericentral mu-rhythm "power" corticomotor excitability? - A matter of EEG perspective
Anke Ninija Karabanov1, Kristoffer Hougaard Madsen2, Lærke Gebser Krohne2
1Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Background:
Electroencephalography (EEG) and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (spTMS) of the primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) have been combined to explore whether the instantaneous expression of pericentral mu-rhythm drives fluctuations in corticomotor excitability, but this line of research has yielded diverging results.
Objectives:
To re-assess the relationship between the mu-rhythm power expressed in left pericentral cortex and the amplitude of motor potentials (MEP) evoked with spTMS in left M1-HAND.
Methods:
15 non-preselected healthy young participants received spTMS to the motor hot spot of left M1-HAND. Regional expression of mu-rhythm was estimated online based on a radial source at motor hotspot and informed the timing of spTMS which was applied either during epochs belonging to the highest or lowest quartile of regionally expressed mu-power. Using MEP amplitude as dependent variable, we computed a linear mixed-effects model, which included mu-power and mu-phase at the time of stimulation and the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. Mu-phase was estimated by post-hoc sorting of trials into four discrete phase bins. We performed a follow-up analysis on the same EEG-triggered MEP data set in which we isolated mu-power at the sensor level using a Laplacian montage centered on the electrode above the M1-HAND.
Results:
Pericentral mu-power traced as radial source at motor hot spot did not significantly modulate the MEP, but mu-power determined by the surface Laplacian did, showing a positive relation between mu-power and MEP amplitude. In neither case, there was an effect of mu-phase on MEP amplitude.
Conclusion:
The relationship between cortical oscillatory activity and cortical excitability is complex and minor differences in the methodological choices may critically affect sensitivity.

