4.6 Article

Threshold curves for transcranial magnetic stimulation to improve reliability of motor pathway status assessment

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 5, 页码 975-983

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.09.005

关键词

Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Motor evoked potential; Motor threshold; Cortex; Excitability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To provide a new protocol for a simple determination of resting motor threshold (MT) and assessment of excitation-inhibition balance in motor cortex and pathways. Methods: Navigated TMS was used to map cortical representation area of the FDI muscle bilaterally in ten healthy subjects. Reference MTs were determined using a threshold hunting paradigm. Subsequently, a novel stimulation protocol was applied which included 70 stimuli (7 intensities, sub-and suprathreshold). The MT-curve was constructed by computing the MTs with several threshold amplitudes with the novel protocol. The measurements were repeated. Sensitivity of the MT-curve to stimulus location was also tested. Results: The reference MTs agreed with those determined with the novel protocol (R = 0.96-0.99, p < 0.001). Based on coefficient of repeatability derived from non-parametric one-way ANOVA, the repeatability was good (qAO = 0.929, p < 0.05). Generally, the mean difference between the repeated MT-curves was < 3% of the maximum stimulator output. Coil movement 10 mm medially from the optimal stimulus location increased that difference to > 7%. Conclusions: The MTs derived using the MT-curve protocol concurred with the reference MTs. The MT-curve is highly reproducible and sensitive to the exact cortical location of stimulation. Significance: The MT-curves provide a simple way to assess motor pathway status using a single stimulation train. This may be useful in the follow-up and monitoring of motor pathway recovery e. g. from stroke or trauma. (C) 2010 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据