Reliability of TMS-related measures of tibialis anterior muscle in patients with chronic stroke and healthy subjects

Cacchio, Angelo; Paoloni, Marco; Cimini, Nicola; Mangone, Massimiliano; Liris, Guido; Aloisi, Paolo; Santilli, Valter; Marrelli, Alfonso

doi:10.1016/j.jns.2011.01.004

Cited by 61 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to other studies (Cacchio, Paoloni, 2011, Carroll, Riek, 2001, Ngomo, Leonard, 2012, Wheaton, Villagra, 2009, we found that active motor threshold demonstrated good reliability and was superior to the MEP size measures overall. This indicates that differences in threshold between sessions did not contribute substantially to the poor intersession reliability of MEP size in the stroke group.…”

Section: Reliability In Stroke and Control Groupssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…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%

“…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). The reliability of MEP characteristics is reduced 4 between sessions compared to within a session (Bastani andJaberzadeh, 2012, Doeltgen et al, 2009), in more distal upper limb muscles compared to proximal (Kamen, 2004, Malcolm et al, 2006, and in populations with neurological conditions compared to healthy individuals (Cacchio, Paoloni, 2011, Wheaton, Villagra, 2009. Of note, the two studies examining responses in patients with stroke found poor-average reliability of MEP amplitude in the lower limb muscles on the paretic side.…”

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: Reliability In Stroke and Control Groupssupporting

confidence: 88%

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

“…Non-navigated TMS mapping studies reported inter-session reliability scores between 0.69 and 0.86 for the representation of different hand muscles (Malcolm et al, 2006), which corresponds to moderate to high testretest reliability. Similar ICCs were reported for the "motor hotspot" of the anterior tibialis muscle (Cacchio et al, 2009;Cacchio et al, 2011). However, data on the reliability of neuronavigated TMS are scarce, particularly for mappings of different body parts.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Motorevoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded using surface electrodes (Ambu Neuroline, Bad Nauheim, Germany) mounted above the abductor pollicis brevis muscle (APB), the plantaris muscle (PM), the mentalis muscle (MM) and the anterior lateral tongue muscles (LT). The PM is less frequently used in nTMS studies compared to, e.g., the tibialis anterior muscle (Cacchio et al, 2009(Cacchio et al, , 2011. However, our fMRI pilot scans showed that toe flexions (engaging the PM) evoked less movement artifacts in head-motion sensitive regions (e.g., ventricles, CSF interface) compared to the ankle movements (engaging the tibialis anterior muscle).…”

Section: Ntms Techniquementioning

confidence: 66%

Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 TMS-related measures of tibialis anterior muscle in patients with chronic stroke and healthy subjects

Cited by 61 publications

References 38 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?

Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About