Reply to the comment on: “Reporting matters: Brain mapping with transcranial magnetic stimulation”

Massé‐Alarie, Hugo; Bergin, Michael; Schneider, Cyril; Schabrun, Siobhan M; Hodges, Paul W.

doi:10.1002/hbm.24471

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These applications demand rigorous methodologies, and careful interpretation of outputs; yet, efforts to standardize methodology remain preliminary ( Krieg et al, 2017 ). Attempts to replicate experimental conditions are complicated by partial methodologies reported in literature ( Cavaleri et al, 2017 ), perhaps contributing to the idea that TMS results are difficult to reproduce ( Héroux et al, 2017 ), with large variability in response misinterpreted or obscured by statistical treatments ( Héroux, 2019 ; Massé-Alarie et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TMS Motor Mapping Methodology and Reliability: A Structured Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor cortical representation can be probed non-invasively using a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) technique known as motor mapping. The mapping technique can influence features of the maps because of several controllable elements. Here we review the literature on six key motor mapping parameters, as well as their influence on outcome measures and discuss factors impacting their selection. 132 of 1,587 distinct records were examined in detail and synthesized to form the basis of our review. A summary of mapping parameters, their impact on outcome measures and feasibility considerations are reported to support the design and interpretation of TMS mapping studies.

show abstract