Comparison of Rossini–Rothwell and adaptive threshold‐hunting methods on the stability of TMS induced motor evoked potentials amplitudes

Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of neuroscience research Vol. 96; no. 11; pp. 1758 - 1765
Main Authors: Dissanayaka, Thusharika, Zoghi, Maryam, Farrell, Michael, Egan, Gary, Jaberzadeh, Shapour
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.11.2018
Subjects:
Amplitudes
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficients
Evoked potentials
healthy human
Hunting
Magnetic fields
motor cortex
Motor evoked potentials
Motors
Parameter estimation
Pests
Recording
Reliability
resting motor threshold
Stimulators
Test procedures
Transcranial magnetic stimulation
motor cortex
resting motor threshold
transcranial magnetic stimulation
healthy human
motor evoked potentials
ISSN:0360-4012, 1097-4547, 1097-4547
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine intra‐ and inter‐session reliability of Rossini–Rothwell (R–R) and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) methods on TMS‐induced MEPs and comparison of these two methods on RMT. Twelve healthy individuals participated in this study three times (T1, T2 and T3) over two days. TMS was applied using both R–R and PEST to estimate RMT and average of 25 MEPs were acquired at each of the three time points. The intra‐class correlation coefficient indicated high intra‐session reliability in the MEP amplitudes for both methods (0.79 and 0.88, R–R and PEST respectively). The RMT and MEP amplitudes had higher inter‐session reliability in both methods (0.99 and 0.998, R–R and PEST respectively; 0.84 and 0.76, R–R and PEST respectively). There was no significant difference between methods for RMT at both T1 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.7% ± 7.7% vs. 33.8% ± 7.6%, p = 0.75) and T3 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.5% ± 7.3% vs. 33.7% ± 7.3%, p = 0.19). There was a significant positive correlation between the methods' estimates of RMT, with PEST requiring significantly fewer stimuli. This study shows that the R–R and PEST methods have high intra‐and inter‐session reliability and the same precision, with PEST having the advantage over R–R in speed of estimation of RMT. R–R and PEST methods are highly reliable for finding RMT, and that there is no difference between TMS‐induced MEPs derived with the methods when measured on two occasions on the same day or between days.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0360-4012
1097-4547
1097-4547
DOI:10.1002/jnr.24319