Sex-specific reference values for total, central, and peripheral latency of motor evoked potentials from a large cohort

Abstract

BackgroundDifferentiating between physiologic and altered motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is crucial in clinical practice. Some physical characteristics, such as height and age, introduce sources of variability unrelated to neural dysfunction. We provided new age- and height-adjusted normal values for cortical latency, central motor conduction time (CMCT), and peripheral motor conduction time (PMCT) from a large cohort of healthy subjects.MethodsPreviously reported data from 587 participants were re-analyzed. Nervous system disorders were ruled out by clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging. MEP latency was determined as stimulus-to-response latency through stimulation with a circular coil over the “hot spot” of the First Dorsal Interosseous and Tibialis Anterior muscles, during mild tonic contraction. CMCT was estimated as the difference between MEP cortical latency and PMCT by radicular magnetic stimulation. Additionally, right-to-left differences were calculated. For each parameter, multiple linear regression models of increasing complexity were fitted using height, age, and sex as regressors.ResultsMotor evoked potential cortical latency, PMCT, and CMCT were shown to be age- and height-dependent, although age had only a small effect on CMCT. Relying on Bayesian information criterion for model selection, MEP cortical latency and PMCT were explained best by linear models indicating a positive correlation with both height and age. Also, CMCT to lower limbs positively correlated with height and age. CMCT to upper limbs positively correlated to height, but slightly inversely correlated to age, as supported by non-parametric bootstrap analysis. Males had longer cortical latencies and CMCT to lower limbs, as well as longer PMCT and cortical latencies to upper limbs, even when accounting for differences in body height. Right-to-left-differences were independent of height, age, and sex. Based on the selected regression models, sex-specific reference values were obtained for all TMS-related latencies and inter-side differences, with adjustments for height and age, where warranted.ConclusionA significant relationship was observed between height and age and all MEP latency values, in both upper and lower limbs. These set of reference values facilitate the evaluation of MEPs in clinical studies and research settings. Unlike previous reports, we also highlighted the contribution of sex.

The complex landscape of TMS devices: A brief overview

“…In the framework of this review, we identify the possible sources of variability in the effects of TMS technique from a technological point of view, by focusing on the device features. However, we have not considered other external sources that could impact on the variability of the TMS effects as procedures [ 118 ], application of reference values [ 119 ], or experience of the operators [ 120 ].…”