The interindividual variability of transcranial magnetic stimulation effects: Implications for diagnostic use in movement disorders

Abstract

Background A large number of methods have been described that use transcranial magnetic stimulation to probe the physiology of the human motor cortex. Since the 1990s, hundreds of papers have used them to investigate neurophysiological signatures of different types of movement disorders. However, in recent years there has been increasing recognition of the interindividual variability of these measures and a focus on estimating their reliability and reproducibility. Although this work has been carried out in healthy individuals, it is highly relevant to movement disorders because it may impact the validity of some accepted (“canonical”) neurophysiological biomarkers. The aim of this review is to reexamine the diagnostic usefulness of transcranial magnetic stimulation methods in movement disorders in the context of present knowledge of methodological variability. Methods We conducted a search of the PubMed database for research and review articles on transcranial magnetic stimulation and its diagnostic utility in movement disorders (specifically Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonism, dystonia, Tourette syndrome and other chronic tic disorders, Huntington's disease, and essential tremor). We highlighted contradictions in the literature and common misconceptions with the aim of providing a clearer picture of the reliability of these measures in differential diagnosis of movement disorders. Conclusion Although there is no doubt that these studies have provided useful insight into the pathophysiology of movement disorders, there is a clear disagreement among many studies that questions the validity of some of the so called “canonical” findings as diagnostic markers. However, useful findings remain and even those with higher variability can be used to support clinical diagnosis in selected cases. © 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Motor Evoked Potentials in Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia—A Systematic Review

“…There are several limitations of MEPs as a clinical biomarker. A recent paper investigating the use of MEP measures in movement disorders, specifically Parkinson's disease, dystonia, Tourette syndrome, Huntington Disease and essential tremor, found discrepancies between studies reporting “canonical” MEP findings for these conditions (56). Similar to our findings, the authors found inconsistencies in methodology, diagnostic criteria for inclusion, study participants' disease stages, and small sample sizes contributed to weaker evidence for the use of MEPs for diagnosis and differential diagnosis in movement disorders.…”

“…∘ Low to moderate reliability of some MEP measures, e.g., MEP recruitment, cortical silence period, intracortical facilitation (56)…”

Using Dual-Site Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Probe Connectivity between the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex and Ipsilateral Primary Motor Cortex in Humans

“…In summary, our data show for the first time that stimulation of DLPFC does not influence ipsilateral motor cortex activity both while participants were at rest and contracting the target muscle. Although caution should be used when interpreting findings with TMS [68], it would be fruitful if future work uses the conditioning-test ds TMS approach described here to probe how DLPFC-M1 interactions dynamically change during higher-level aspects of motor control across the lifespan and how these interactions are affected by abnormalities of motor and cognitive function in pathological conditions such as stroke, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease.…”

Plasticity and dystonia: a hypothesis shrouded in variability

“…It is likely that we have been sampling a highly variable outcome parameters with numbers that are too low to adequately power studies. Recent reviews have described the belief in the plasticity hypothesis in dystonia as ‘canonical’ rather than evidence based (Conte et al 2019 ; Latorre et al 2019 ). Our collective commitment to plasticity as a hypothesis for dystonia pathophysiology will lead to both implicit and explicit bias (e.g.…”