A new neurometric dissection of the area-under-curve-associated jiggle of the motor evoked potential induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation

León-Sarmiento, Fidias E.; Rizzo-Sierra, Carlos V.; León-Ariza, Juan S.; Leon-Ariza, Daniel S.; Sobota, Rosanna; Prada, Diddier

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.01.014

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, it has been previously shown that 13 min of c‐tDCS with current intensity of 1 mA reduces M1 corticospinal excitability for 1 h (Nitsche & Paulus, , ; Monte‐Silva et al ., ). In contrast, in some other studies M1 c‐tDCS resulted in opposite effects (Batsikadze et al ., ; Leon‐Sarmiento et al ., ). As smaller electrodes induce more focused electrical fields over target areas (Bikson et al ., ; Christie et al ., ), the discrepancy in the result could be easily explained by methodological differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Unihemispheric concurrent dual‐site cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation: the effects on corticospinal excitability

Vaseghi

Zoghi

Jaberzadeh

2016

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to assess the effects of concurrent cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) of two targets in a hemisphere, termed unihemispheric concurrent dual-site cathodal tDCS (c-tDCSUHCDS ), on the size of M1 corticospinal excitability and its lasting effect. Secondary aims were to identify the mechanisms behind the efficacy of c-tDCSUHCDS and to evaluate the side effects of this new technique. Twelve healthy volunteers received 20 min c-tDCS under five conditions in a random order: M1 c-tDCS, c-tDCSUHCDS of M1-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), M1-primary sensory cortex (S1), M1-primary visual cortex (V1) and sham. The M1 corticospinal excitability of the first dorsal interossei muscle was assessed before, immediately after, and 30 min, 60 min and 24 h after the interventions. Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were also assessed, using a paired-pulse paradigm. Compared to conventional M1 c-tDCS, corticospinal excitability significantly increased following c-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC and M1-V1 for up to 24 h (P = 0.001). Significant increases in ICF were observed following c-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC (P = 0.005) and M1-V1 (P = 0.002). Compared to baseline values, ICF and SICI increased significantly at T60 (P < 0.001) and T24 h (P < 0.001) following the concurrent c-tDCS of M1 and V1. Sham c-tDCSUHCDS did not induce any significant alteration. The corticospinal excitability increase was mainly accompanied by ICF increase, which indirectly indicates the activity of glutamergic mechanisms. The findings may help us to more fully understand the brain function and develop future motor learning studies. No significant excitability change induced by sham c-tDCSUHCDS suggests that there is no placebo effect associated with this new tDCS technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Unihemispheric concurrent dual‐site cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation: the effects on corticospinal excitability

Vaseghi

Zoghi

Jaberzadeh

2016

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the AUC is closer to 1.00, the better diagnostic authenticity is reliable. [44] Therefore, all these 3 parameters implied that RS could discriminate colorectal cancer form normal tissues with a high diagnostic accuracy. The pooled DOR value that ranges from 0 to infinity with a higher value implying better differentiating effect, [45] was 263.65 (99.03–701.96) in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis accuracy of Raman spectroscopy in colorectal cancer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The clinical significance of Raman spectroscopy (RS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients still remains underestimated. We performed this meta-analysis to elucidate the diagnostic value in CRC patients. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases for published articles. Fixed effect model and random effect model were used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and positive posttest probability (PPP) of CRC. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were conducted to assess potential source of heterogeneity. We also used Egger linear regression tests to assess risk of publication bias. Results: Thirteen studies had been included (679 patients: 186 with premalignant lesions and 493 with malignant lesions). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PLR, NLR, DOR and PPP for CRC screening using RS were 0.94 (0.92–0.96), 0.94 (0.88–0.97), 0.96 (0.94–0.98), 16.44 (7.80–34.63), 0.062 (0.043–0.090), 263.65 (99.03–701.96) and 86%, respectively. Conclusion: RS is a potentially useful tool for future CRC screening. It also offers potentially early detection for CRC patients.

show abstract

“…Our method represents a paradigm shift in assessment, analysis, and interpretation of MEP bioenergy giving altogether full mathematical meaning to the content of rectified signals [2,6]. Counting as accurate as possible the bioenergy of the MEP will reduce uncertainty, improve outcomes, enhance internal validity, boost external validity, and ensure reproducibility of studies aiming to better understand the motor system function of living organisms.̂calculation can be useful to accurately determine parameters such as oxygen consumption and ATP, among other variables used to define energy muscle expenditures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bioenergy of the MEP recorded during a muscle contraction was measured in a similar way as the bioenergy assessment done on the MEPs recorded at rest with a variation. was at this occasion placed at the time when the muscle activation ended followed by a flat baseline [2,29].…”

Section: Bio-work Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assessment of the area of full-wave rectify neural signals has been diverse, contradictory, and confusing. V * msc, mV/sec, mV * sec, ms * nM, uV, uv 2 , or just arbitrary units have been some of the miscellaneous units used to calculate the rectified motor evoked potential (MEP) [1,2], which reflects the corticospinal tracts state from brain to muscles following transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) [3,4]. Since full wave rectification transforms raw signals recorded out of the baseline to a single polarity [5] and indicates the energy contained by a signal [1,6] it is rather surprising that the aforementioned ambiguous approaches have been used for decades in MEP data processing without the precision energy calculation deserve misleading interpretations and clouding data reproducibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neurophysics Assessment of the Muscle Bioenergy Generated by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The content of the rectified motor evoked potential (MEP) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has ambiguously been assessed without the precision that energy calculation deserves. This fact has misled data interpretation and misguided biomedical interventions. To definitively fill the gap that exits in the neurophysics processing of these signals, we computed, in Walls (W^), the bioenergy within the rectified MEP recorded from the human first digitorum index (FDI) muscle at rest and under isometric contraction. We also gauged the biowork exerted by this muscle. Here we show that bioenergy and biowork can accurately and successfully be assessed, validated, and determined in W^ from MEP signals induced by TMS, regardless of knowing the mathematical expression of the function of the signal. Our novel neurophysics approach represents a dramatic paradigm shift in analysis and interpretation of the content of the MEP and will give a true meaning to the content of rectified signals. Importantly, this innovative approach allowed unveiling that women exerted more bioenergy than men at the magnetic stimulations used in this study. Revisitation of conclusions drawn from studies published elsewhere assessing rectified EMG signals that have used ambiguous units is strongly recommended.

show abstract

A new neurometric dissection of the area-under-curve-associated jiggle of the motor evoked potential induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation

Cited by 8 publications

References 72 publications

Unihemispheric concurrent dual‐site cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation: the effects on corticospinal excitability

Unihemispheric concurrent dual‐site cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation: the effects on corticospinal excitability

Diagnosis accuracy of Raman spectroscopy in colorectal cancer

Neurophysics Assessment of the Muscle Bioenergy Generated by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About