2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hysteresis effects on the input–output curve of motor evoked potentials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
101
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 106 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
3
101
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Again the 99% confidence interval for the difference between means included zero as a possible value, which suggests any possible difference between means was negligible [99% CI ϭ (Ϫ0.005 to 0.005)]. Thus not only did we fail to detect significant difference between blocks in relation to pre-TMS EMG activity (which seems to be in agreement with the confidence intervals for the difference between means), but also the values observed for both blocks were very small and well within previously reported values for RMS EMG at rest (e.g., Moller et al 2009). These results suggest that differences in MEP amplitude between full view and occluded view blocks were unlikely to be caused by an increase in pre-TMS EMG activity.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Again the 99% confidence interval for the difference between means included zero as a possible value, which suggests any possible difference between means was negligible [99% CI ϭ (Ϫ0.005 to 0.005)]. Thus not only did we fail to detect significant difference between blocks in relation to pre-TMS EMG activity (which seems to be in agreement with the confidence intervals for the difference between means), but also the values observed for both blocks were very small and well within previously reported values for RMS EMG at rest (e.g., Moller et al 2009). These results suggest that differences in MEP amplitude between full view and occluded view blocks were unlikely to be caused by an increase in pre-TMS EMG activity.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…First, Tinazzi et al (2003) used a nonfocal circular coil and measured SP duration at only one stimulus intensity. In our study stimuli were delivered with a focal figure-of-eight coil and we measured complete SP duration I/O curves, which provide more complete and accurate estimates of SP durations (Kimiskidis et al 2005;Möller et al 2009). Kimiskidis et al (2005) compared the classical SP measurement method at one stimulus intensity to measurements of plateau value, S 50 , and slope of I/O duration curves in epileptic patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it is possible that there is an order effect for these two conditions with subjects having a modified response to subsequent exposures to the water flow condition. Third, in EX 2 and 3, the interstimulus interval might be too short and lead to hysteresis effects on MEPs recruitment curve (Moller et al 2009). …”
Section: Primary Motor Cortex Excitability At Rest (Tms Study)mentioning
confidence: 99%