2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.07.047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conventional or threshold-hunting TMS? A tale of two SICIs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
30
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
5
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6A between SICI assessed by threshold-tracking (T-SICI) and that assessed by conventional amplitude measurements (A-SICI), was closer than might have been expected, with almost 97% of the variance in mean T-SICIp values accounted for by the logarithmic relationship with the A-SICI geometric means. We were comparing independent SICI methods, so that no attempt was made to match the MEP amplitudes, as was done in a previous A-SICI/T-SICI comparison [14]: T-SICI used a target response of 0.2 mV, while A-SICI started with a target response of 1 mV. The present finding of a good correlation between A-SICI and T-SICIp across a range of ISIs extends a previous finding that a correlation is maintained across conditions with both comparable and non-comparable test stimulus intensities [11].…”
Section: Relationship Between A-sici and T-sicimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…6A between SICI assessed by threshold-tracking (T-SICI) and that assessed by conventional amplitude measurements (A-SICI), was closer than might have been expected, with almost 97% of the variance in mean T-SICIp values accounted for by the logarithmic relationship with the A-SICI geometric means. We were comparing independent SICI methods, so that no attempt was made to match the MEP amplitudes, as was done in a previous A-SICI/T-SICI comparison [14]: T-SICI used a target response of 0.2 mV, while A-SICI started with a target response of 1 mV. The present finding of a good correlation between A-SICI and T-SICIp across a range of ISIs extends a previous finding that a correlation is maintained across conditions with both comparable and non-comparable test stimulus intensities [11].…”
Section: Relationship Between A-sici and T-sicimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Just as resting motor threshold (RMT) can be measured in different ways [12,13], so can the threshold for a conditioned response. For example, adaptive threshold hunting has been used by Cirillo and colleagues [14], using a 'maximum-likelihood parameter estimation by sequential testing' (PEST) [15,16]. To make an accurate comparison between the constant response and constant stimulus measures of SICI, they matched the conditioned and test stimulus intensities between the two approaches, so that the measurements were not independent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For both experiments, the order of the experimental conditions was randomized across participants. An available online freeware (TMS Motor Threshold Assessment Tool, MTAT 2.0), based on a maximum-likelihood Parameter Estimation by Sequential Testing (PEST) strategy was used with "assessment without a priori information" in line with previous studies Cirillo et al, 2018). The stimulation sequence always began with the TS at 37 %MSO.…”
Section: Adaptive Threshold-hunting Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%
“…To do so, we designed a pair of experiments in which we varied the CS intensity and determined the TS intensity required to maintain a fixed MEP amplitude for each condition using an adaptive threshold hunting technique (Awiszus et al, 1999;Fisher et al, 2002;Awiszus, 2003;Samusyte et al, 2018;Vucic et al, 2018). This method has been recently developed in order to overcome the potential limitations of conventional paired-pulse TMS protocols, such as large variability in MEP amplitude and a "floor/ceiling effect" when the observed inhibition leads to complete MEP suppression Cirillo et al, 2018;Van den Bos et al, 2018). The adaptive threshold-hunting technique provides a new opportunity to extend our understanding of physiological mechanisms underlying intracortical inhibition in healthy subjects and it has been recently shown to be more reliable with shorter acquisition time than conventional SICI techniques (Samusyte et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To do so, we designed a pair of experiments in which we varied the CS intensity and determined the TS intensity required to maintain a fixed MEP amplitude for each condition using an adaptive threshold hunting technique (Awiszus et al, 1999;Fisher et al, 2002;Awiszus, 2003;Samusyte et al, 2018;Vucic et al, 2018). This method has been recently developed in order to overcome the potential limitations of conventional paired-pulse TMS protocols, such as large variability in MEP amplitude and a "floor/ceiling effect" when the observed inhibition leads to complete MEP suppression (Cirillo and Byblow, 2016;Cirillo et al, 2018;Van den Bos et al, 2018). The adaptive threshold-hunting technique provides a new opportunity to extend our understanding of physiological mechanisms underlying intracortical inhibition in healthy subjects and it has been recently shown to be more reliable with shorter acquisition time than conventional SICI techniques (Samusyte et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%