Reliability of motor-evoked potentials in the ADM muscle of older adults

Christie, Anita; Fling, Brett W.; Crews, Ryan T.; Mulwitz, Lauren A.; Kamen, Gary

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.05.011

Cited by 58 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the exception of the stroke group intersession values, in all cases MEP single area and amplitude and MEP mean area ICC values were greater than 0.80 when using six or more MEPs. From these data, and in agreement with previous studies in healthy individuals (Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012, Christie, Fling, 2007, Doeltgen, Ridding, 16 2009) and guidelines for clinical use of TMS (Groppa, Oliviero, 2012), we recommend that as few as six MEPs can be used to achieve reliable within session measures for patients with stroke. Six MEPs should also provide reliable intersession measures for people with an intact nervous system.…”

Section: Number Of Responsessupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Previous studies examining the reliability of MEPs have mainly focused on hand and forearm muscles (Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012, Carroll et al, 2001, Christie et al, 2007, Kamen, 2004, Livingston and Ingersoll, 2008, McDonnell et al, 2004, Mortifee et al, 1994, Ngomo et al, 2012, with a smaller number of studies examining muscles from the lower limb (Cacchio et al, 2009, Cacchio et al, 2011, Tallent et al, 2012, van Hedel et al, 2007, Wheaton et al, 2009). Most authors have reported good or excellent reliability of MEP amplitude measurements within and between sessions but this is not always consistent (Livingston andIngersoll, 2008, McDonnell, Ridding, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the use of neuronavigation systems for coil positioning have not yielded notable improvements in reliability (Fleming et al, 2012, Jung et al, 2010, it has been consistently reported that reliability is enhanced when a greater number of responses to TMS are collected (Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012, Christie, Fling, 2007, Doeltgen, Ridding, 2009, Kamen, 2004. The minimum number of MEPs required to obtain reliable results has been recommended at five for intrasession (Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012, Christie, Fling, 2007, Doeltgen, Ridding, 2009) and ten for intersession comparisons (Bastani andJaberzadeh, 2012, Doeltgen, Ridding, 2009). Only one study has investigated the effect of different MEP processing and analysis procedures and showed no difference in reliability between the use of MEP area and MEP amplitude outcome measures to represent the magnitude of the MEP (McDonnell, Ridding, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability of lower limb motor evoked potentials in stroke and healthy populations: How many responses are needed?

Lewis

Signal

Taylor

2014

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Intrasession reliability of lower limb motor evoked potentials (MEPs) is excellent in patients with stroke when using as few as 6 responses  Intersession reliability of MEPs is poor in patients with stroke, questioning the ability of this measure to reliably capture changes in corticomotor excitability over time  Measuring the amplitude of each single MEP or using MEP area provides a more reliable measure of MEP size than averaging non-rectified responses AbstractObjective: To determine the intra-and inter-session reliability of motor evoked potential (MEP) size parameters in the lower limb of patients with stroke, focussing on the number of MEPs collected and the method of measuring MEP size. Methods: Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to elicit MEPs in the soleus muscle of patients with stroke (n=13) and age-matched healthy participants (n=13) during low level muscle activation. Two sets of 10 responses were collected in the first session and a further 10 responses collected in a second session held 7 days later. Four MEP size measurements were made using 4, 6, 8, or all 10 of the MEPs collected. Intra-and inter-session reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical percentage error. Results: Intrasession ICC statistics using 6 or more MEPs were >0.85 in the stroke group but intersession values were all <0.5.Reliability was best when measuring parameters from individual MEPs rather than averaged responses. Conclusions: Reliability of intrasession MEP size is excellent in the lower limb of patients with stroke using as few as 6 MEPs but intersession reliability is poor. Significance:Comparing MEP size measures across two or more sessions is questionable in the lower limb of patients with stroke.3

show abstract

Section: Number Of Responsessupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of lower limb motor evoked potentials in stroke and healthy populations: How many responses are needed?

Lewis

Signal

Taylor

2014

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hundreds of studies in neurologic populations such as stroke and spinal cord injury attribute time-varying change in TMS metrics to physiologic mechanisms underlying disease and recovery (Stinear et al, 2007; Trompetto et al, 2000; Liepert et al, 2000; Wittenberg et al, 2003). However, to ensure that TMS can indeed serve as a clinical tool to track longitudinal processes, it is first critical to understand test-retest reliability of its metrics in healthy individuals (Malcolm et al, 2006; Pourtney and Watkins, 2000; Christie et al, 2007; Doeltgen et al, 2009; De Vet et al, 2006; Mills and Nithi 1997; Kimiskidis et al 2004). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the majority defines reliability of metrics for distal muscles of the upper limb (Christie et al, 2007; Kamen, 2004; Livingston and Ingersolle, 2008; Malcolm et al, 2006; McDonnell et al, 2004; Carroll et al, 2001; Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012). Distal muscles have been the muscles of choice because they are afforded with prominent cortical representations and substantial corticospinal projections (Malcolm et al, 2006; Kamen, 2004; Brasil-Neto et al, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of transcranial magnetic stimulation metrics in the study of proximal upper limb muscles

Sankarasubramanian

Roelle

Bonnett

et al. 2015

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Reproducibility of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) metrics is essential in accurately tracking recovery and disease. However, majority of evidence pertains to reproducibility of metrics for distal upper limb muscles. We investigate for the first time, reliability of corticospinal physiology for a large proximal muscle-the biceps brachii and relate how varying statistical analyses can influence interpretations. Methods 14 young right-handed healthy participants completed two sessions assessing resting motor threshold (RMT), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), motor map and intra-cortical inhibition (ICI) from the left biceps brachii. Analyses included paired t-tests, Pearson's, intra-class (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. Results Unlike paired t-tests, ICC, CCC and Pearson's were >0.6 indicating good reliability for RMTs, MEP intensities and locations of map; however values were <0.3 for MEP responses and ICI. Conclusions Corticospinal physiology, defining excitability and output in terms of intensity of the TMS device, and spatial loci are the most reliable metrics for the biceps. MEPs and variables based on MEPs are less reliable since biceps receives fewer cortico-motor-neuronal projections. Statistical tests of agreement and associations are more powerful reliability indices than inferential tests. Significance Reliable metrics of proximal muscles when translated to a larger number of participants would serve to sensitively track and prognosticate function in neurological disorders such as stroke where proximal recovery precedes distal.

show abstract

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

Dissanayaka

Zoghi

Farrell

et al. 2018

J of Neuroscience Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Reliability of motor-evoked potentials in the ADM muscle of older adults

Cited by 58 publications

References 17 publications

Reliability of lower limb motor evoked potentials in stroke and healthy populations: How many responses are needed?

Reliability of lower limb motor evoked potentials in stroke and healthy populations: How many responses are needed?

Reproducibility of transcranial magnetic stimulation metrics in the study of proximal upper limb muscles

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About