On the reliability of motor evoked potentials in hand muscles of healthy adults: a systematic review

Osnabruegge, Mirja; Kanig, Carolina; Schwitzgebel, Florian; Litschel, Karsten; Seiberl, Wolfgang; Mack, Wolfgang; Schecklmann, Martin; Schoisswohl, Stefan

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1237712

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…use of different pulse sources, coils, waveforms, stimulation intensity or data pre-processing approaches [5,[9][10][11]. Additionally, the variety of setups between different TMS studies potentially influences results and hampers comparability across studies [12]. This could be further complicated by variations of the output within a single TMS pulse source, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability of pulse width in transcranial magnetic stimulation

Osnabruegge,

Kanig,

Schoisswohl

et al. 2024

J. Neural Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: There is a high variability in the physiological effects of transcranial magnetic brain stimulation, resulting in limited generalizability of measurements. The cause of the variability is assumed to be primarily based on differences in brain function and structure of the stimulated individuals, while the variability of the physical properties of the magnetic stimulus has so far been largely neglected. Thus, this study is dedicated to the systematic investigation of variability in the pulse width of different TMS pulse sources at different stimulation intensities.Approach: The pulse widths of seven MagVenture® pulse sources were measured at the output of 10 – 100 % stimulation intensity in 10% increments via Near Field Probe and oscilloscope. The same C-B60 coil was used to deliver biphasic pulses. Pulse widths were compared between pulse sources and stimulation intensities.Main results: The mean sample pulse width was 288.11 ± 0.37 µs, which deviates from the value of 280 µs specified by the manufacturer. The pulse sources and stimulation intensities differ in their average pulse width (p’s < .001). However, the coefficient of variation within the groups (pulse source; stimulation intensity) were moderately low (CV = 0.13 – 0.67 %).Significance: The technical parameter of pulse width shows deviations from the proposed manufacturer value. According to our data, within a pulse source of the same manufacturer, the pulse width variability is minimal, but varies between pulse sources of the same and other pulse source models. Whether the observed variability in pulse width has potential physiological relevance was tested in a pilot experiment on a single healthy subject, showing no significant difference in motor evoked potential amplitude and significant difference in latencies. Future research should systematically investigate the physiological effects of different pulse lengths. Furthermore, potential hardware ageing effects and pulse amplitude should be investigated.

show abstract