2022
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12101401
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inter-Individual Variability in Motor Output Is Driven by Recruitment Gain in the Corticospinal Tract Rather Than Motor Threshold

Abstract: d Variability in the response of individuals to various non-invasive brain stimulation protocols is a major problem that limits their potential for clinical applications. Baseline motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude is the key predictor of an individual’s response to transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols. However, the factors that predict MEP amplitude and its variability remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to identify the input–output curve (IOC) parameters that best predict MEP amplitude and its… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas the RMT has been reported to be increased in some studies [22,24], this finding has not been confirmed by other authors [16,18], who also found normal MEP amplitudes in FP [17,18]. In this regard, it is worth noticing that a single TMS intensity was used instead of MEP recruitment with multiple stimulation intensities, which may reflect M1 excitability more accurately [37][38][39]. A certain variability in results has also been found in intracortical inhibition processes, with SICI reported to be either normal [16,18] or increased in the affected and decreased in the unaffected hemisphere [22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Whereas the RMT has been reported to be increased in some studies [22,24], this finding has not been confirmed by other authors [16,18], who also found normal MEP amplitudes in FP [17,18]. In this regard, it is worth noticing that a single TMS intensity was used instead of MEP recruitment with multiple stimulation intensities, which may reflect M1 excitability more accurately [37][38][39]. A certain variability in results has also been found in intracortical inhibition processes, with SICI reported to be either normal [16,18] or increased in the affected and decreased in the unaffected hemisphere [22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…In the literature, associations between the effects of NIBS and neurophysiological parameters, including short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), intracortical facilitation (ICF), and the coefficient of variation of the MEP (MEP-CV), have been reported ( Hordacre et al, 2017 ; Li et al, 2019 ; Katagiri et al, 2020 ). Additionally, the slope of the recruitment curve (RC) is a predictor of variability in the amplitude of the test MEP ( Sarkar et al, 2022 ). By incorporating these factors, machine-learning techniques may effectively identify responders and nonresponders, subsequently complementing the traditional linear regression approach used in previous studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%