A comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential

J.B. Pitcher; S.H. Doeltgen; M.R Goldsworthy; L.A Schneider; A.M. Vallence; A.E Smith; J.G Semmler; M.N. McDonnell; M.C. Ridding

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.011

Back

A comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential

Journal article

Peer reviewed

A comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential

J.B. Pitcher, S.H. Doeltgen, M.R Goldsworthy, L.A Schneider, A.M. Vallence, A.E Smith, J.G Semmler, M.N. McDonnell and M.C. Ridding

Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol.126(12), pp.2337-2341

2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.011

Files and links (1)

url

Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Two commonly-used methods for setting stimulus intensities in transcranial magnetic brain stimulation studies were compared to determine which best approximated a motor evoked potential (MEP) of 50% of the maximal MEP amplitude (SI50); a suprathreshold intensity relative to resting motor threshold (rMT) or adjusting the intensity to evoke an MEP amplitude of 1mV. METHODS: Corticomotor stimulus-response curves and rMT for the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle of 176 subjects (aged 10-74years) were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: Regardless of subject age or sex, SI50 occurred at 127.5+/-11.3% rMT. Except in young children, MEPs of 1mV were significantly smaller than those evoked at SI50. CONCLUSIONS: In the inactive FDI muscle, a stimulus intensity of 127-128% rMT consistently gives the best approximation of SI50 in most subjects, except perhaps young children. SIGNIFICANCE: Setting TMS stimulus intensities relative to rMT provides a less variable inter-subject comparator, with respect to individual differences in corticomotor input-output characteristics, than adjusting the stimulator output to give an absolute MEP magnitude.

Details

Title: A comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential
Authors/Creators: J.B. Pitcher (Author/Creator)
S.H. Doeltgen (Author/Creator)
M.R Goldsworthy (Author/Creator)
L.A Schneider (Author/Creator)
A.M. Vallence (Author/Creator)
A.E Smith (Author/Creator)
J.G Semmler (Author/Creator)
M.N. McDonnell (Author/Creator)
M.C. Ridding (Author/Creator)
Publication Details: Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol.126(12), pp.2337-2341
Publisher: Elsevier
Identifiers: 991005541726607891
Copyright: © 2015 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.
Murdoch Affiliation: School of Psychology and Exercise Science
Language: English
Resource Type: Journal article
Note: Available online 28 February 2015

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: InCites

Metrics

26 Record Views

27 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types: Domestic collaboration
Citation topics: 1 Clinical & Life Sciences; 1.82 Gait & Posture; 1.82.811 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Web Of Science research areas: Clinical Neurology; Neurosciences
ESI research areas: Neuroscience & Behavior