EP 142
Objective A major challenge in the interpretation of data in experiments with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is the variability of measures of cortico-spinal excitability (CSE). Background activity in the electromyogram (EMG), called preinnervation, is a critical confounder in TMS data and...
Saved in:
Published in | Clinical neurophysiology Vol. 127; no. 9; pp. e301 - e302 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
01.09.2016
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1388-2457 |
DOI | 10.1016/j.clinph.2016.05.181 |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Objective A major challenge in the interpretation of data in experiments with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is the variability of measures of cortico-spinal excitability (CSE). Background activity in the electromyogram (EMG), called preinnervation, is a critical confounder in TMS data and has so far been controlled by audio-visual monitoring and subjectively minimizing the tone in a target muscle group (Rossini et al. 2015). Here we suggest and validate a rater-independent alternative by measuring and correcting for EMG-activity preceding a TMS stimulus based on a regression model (Schmidt et al. 2015, Bathe-Peters et al., NBS 2013). The validity of different algorithms for the quantification and correction of preinnervation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity of differentially defined measures of preinnervation, using linear and non-linear methods, in a self-paced isometric contraction task versus a “resting” condition. We hypothesized that, in the “active” condition, a non-linear correction for preinnervation is superior to a linear method. Secondly, longer time bins of pre-stimulus EMG-activity should increase validity. In the “resting” condition, where the muscle tone was visually minimized, linear and non-linear modeling of CSE independent of possible left-over preinnervation should yield similar results (Darling et al. 2006). Methods Trains of single pulses of navigated TMS (nTMS) were applied to the dominant “hot-spot” of the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI) in healthy volunteers (4 f., 3 m.). In the “active” condition, subjects performed an isometric flexion of the index finger with three pre-defined force levels in a randomized order. In the “resting” condition, relaxation was visually monitored in the surface EMG of the FDI. Preinnervation was defined by the area-under-the-curve in 100, 200 and 300 ms time bins in the EMG prior to a stimulus. The amount of variability of motor evoked potentials explained by these measures of preinnervation was assessed with a simple linear and a non-linear regression using a sigmoidal fit. Results In the “active” condition, the predictive validity of preinnervation steadily increased with longer time bins, starting at about 60% (p < 0.001) using a 100 ms time bin and a linear fit to about 70% ( p < 0.001) using a 300 ms time bin and a sigmoidal fit. In subjects at rest, no significant difference between the fitting algorithm and different time bins was found. Conclusions In line with previous studies, preinnervation validly predicted CSE in both linear (Schmidt et al. 2015) and non-linear (Darling et al. 2006) regression. Across different levels of muscle activity, a sigmoidal fit might reflect the input-output properties of the stimulated cortico-spinal networks and thus yield higher predictive validity (Devanne et al. 1997). In the resting motor state, we suggest linear regression as a valid method to measure and correct for preinnervation. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Objective A major challenge in the interpretation of data in experiments with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is the variability of measures of cortico-spinal excitability (CSE). Background activity in the electromyogram (EMG), called preinnervation, is a critical confounder in TMS data and has so far been controlled by audio-visual monitoring and subjectively minimizing the tone in a target muscle group (Rossini et al. 2015). Here we suggest and validate a rater-independent alternative by measuring and correcting for EMG-activity preceding a TMS stimulus based on a regression model (Schmidt et al. 2015, Bathe-Peters et al., NBS 2013). The validity of different algorithms for the quantification and correction of preinnervation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity of differentially defined measures of preinnervation, using linear and non-linear methods, in a self-paced isometric contraction task versus a “resting” condition. We hypothesized that, in the “active” condition, a non-linear correction for preinnervation is superior to a linear method. Secondly, longer time bins of pre-stimulus EMG-activity should increase validity. In the “resting” condition, where the muscle tone was visually minimized, linear and non-linear modeling of CSE independent of possible left-over preinnervation should yield similar results (Darling et al. 2006). Methods Trains of single pulses of navigated TMS (nTMS) were applied to the dominant “hot-spot” of the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI) in healthy volunteers (4 f., 3 m.). In the “active” condition, subjects performed an isometric flexion of the index finger with three pre-defined force levels in a randomized order. In the “resting” condition, relaxation was visually monitored in the surface EMG of the FDI. Preinnervation was defined by the area-under-the-curve in 100, 200 and 300 ms time bins in the EMG prior to a stimulus. The amount of variability of motor evoked potentials explained by these measures of preinnervation was assessed with a simple linear and a non-linear regression using a sigmoidal fit. Results In the “active” condition, the predictive validity of preinnervation steadily increased with longer time bins, starting at about 60% (p < 0.001) using a 100 ms time bin and a linear fit to about 70% ( p < 0.001) using a 300 ms time bin and a sigmoidal fit. In subjects at rest, no significant difference between the fitting algorithm and different time bins was found. Conclusions In line with previous studies, preinnervation validly predicted CSE in both linear (Schmidt et al. 2015) and non-linear (Darling et al. 2006) regression. Across different levels of muscle activity, a sigmoidal fit might reflect the input-output properties of the stimulated cortico-spinal networks and thus yield higher predictive validity (Devanne et al. 1997). In the resting motor state, we suggest linear regression as a valid method to measure and correct for preinnervation. |
Author | Rönnefarth, M Schmidt, S Arvid, K Brandt, S.A Bathe-Peters, R Robert, F |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 fullname: Bathe-Peters, R – sequence: 2 fullname: Rönnefarth, M – sequence: 3 fullname: Robert, F – sequence: 4 fullname: Arvid, K – sequence: 5 fullname: Brandt, S.A – sequence: 6 fullname: Schmidt, S |
BookMark | eNotj81KAzEUhbOoYlt9Axe-wIz35meSbAQp1QoFBXUdkkyCM9aZkqDQtzfjuLpc-M7hOyuyGMYhEHKNUCNgc9vX_tANx4-alq8GUaPCBVkiU6qiXMgLssq5BwAJnC7J-fblBjm9JGfRHnK4-r9r8v6wfdvsqv3z49Pmfl95BMCqlQzRCckkMOWc0L5puRYiaqdYA9R6rpWEVrhCeow0egvgCqqtiqjZmvC516cx5xSiOabuy6aTQTCTv-nN7G8mfwPCFP8Su5tjobj9dCH9QZ23h89wCrkfv9NQtA2aTA2Y12ntNBYbBpRJZL9rf0_y |
ContentType | Journal Article |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION |
DOI | 10.1016/j.clinph.2016.05.181 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef |
DatabaseTitleList | |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EndPage | e302 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_1016_j_clinph_2016_05_181 1_s2_0_S1388245716302371 |
GroupedDBID | --- --K --M -~X .1- .55 .FO .GJ .~1 0R~ 1B1 1P~ 1RT 1~. 1~5 29B 4.4 457 4G. 53G 5GY 5RE 5VS 6J9 7-5 71M 8P~ AABNK AACTN AAEDT AAEDW AAIKJ AAKOC AALRI AAOAW AAQFI AAQXK AAXKI AAXLA AAXUO ABBQC ABCQJ ABFNM ABFRF ABIVO ABJNI ABLJU ABMAC ABMZM ABTEW ABWVN ABXDB ACDAQ ACGFO ACIUM ACRLP ACRPL ADBBV ADEZE ADMUD ADNMO ADVLN AEBSH AEFWE AEIPS AEKER AENEX AEVXI AFCTW AFJKZ AFKWA AFRHN AFTJW AFXIZ AGHFR AGUBO AGWIK AGYEJ AI. AIEXJ AIKHN AITUG AJOXV AJRQY AJUYK AKRWK ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMFUW AMRAJ ANKPU ANZVX ASPBG AVWKF AXJTR AZFZN BKOJK BLXMC BNPGV CS3 DU5 EBS EFJIC EJD EO8 EO9 EP2 EP3 F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN G-Q GBLVA HVGLF HX~ HZ~ IHE J1W K-O KOM L7B M41 MO0 MOBAO MVM N9A O-L O9- OAUVE OHT OP~ OZT P-8 P-9 P2P PC. PKN Q38 R2- RIG ROL RPZ SCC SDF SDG SDP SEL SES SEW SPCBC SSH SSN SSZ T5K UAP UNMZH UV1 VH1 VQA X7M XOL XPP Z5R ZGI ~G- AATTM AAYWO AAYXX ACIEU ACVFH ADCNI AEUPX AFPUW AGCQF AGQPQ AGRNS AIGII AIIUN AKBMS AKYEP APXCP CITATION |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c1001-d7311b5737038bb59c6d4955f9b83602ac49870d5bd73c1f2fca00b8bb9a8f193 |
ISSN | 1388-2457 |
IngestDate | Tue Jul 01 02:54:36 EDT 2025 Sun Feb 23 10:20:05 EST 2025 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 9 |
Language | English |
License | https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0 |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c1001-d7311b5737038bb59c6d4955f9b83602ac49870d5bd73c1f2fca00b8bb9a8f193 |
ParticipantIDs | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinph_2016_05_181 elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S1388245716302371 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2016-09-00 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2016-09-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 09 year: 2016 text: 2016-09-00 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationTitle | Clinical neurophysiology |
PublicationYear | 2016 |
SSID | ssj0007042 |
Score | 2.1791773 |
Snippet | Objective A major challenge in the interpretation of data in experiments with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is the variability of measures of... |
SourceID | crossref elsevier |
SourceType | Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | e301 |
SubjectTerms | Neurology |
Title | EP 142 |
URI | https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S1388245716302371 |
Volume | 127 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3PS8MwFA6iIl7Enzh_sYM3aWnatEmOTiYiTAZusFto0hTcYQ43PXjwb_cladqpQ5yXsrVduuQLX17fe98LQpeaFQTrVAL76TQgMqIBzzgPZCFJQSRLErvzXO8huxuS-1E6araSs-qSuQzV-1JdyX9QhXOAq1HJroBs3SicgM-ALxwBYTj-CeNu_wq7qlF1sQEvdLR1Kq3b4ovfvGMMvsAm5ToXS1hHXEzIvJMB7ZZ5lTXYay7a_Gtr6IbNFHl7co7ScNF1gLM6N8qzXWIGlLgK0TUdOq1-hTtfIDedVD_W_mu8lISdP2AcGm3n1AR8cGaqo2KGm0XHB9q_rUV1hqBPPhsL14owrYgoFdjo7DdiSm1QPvxoEnpoZLdKqjvlhZI2m-_nf1luiCwYF4NdtFO9FbSvHcR7aE1P9tFWr8p7OECb3X4bkD5Ew9vu4OYuqHawCJSpbRUUNMFYpjQBXmVSplxlBbyRpiWXRjwT54pwIMwilXCnwmVcqjyKJNzKc1aCbX2E1ifPE32M2nA10SzLo4xhonDOSA4tEBVLJYF3yxYKfHfE1BUqEb8NYgtR32fhRbiwbOhZNb9nAotZLCLxaAbUjCdY7mDgUXyy4pNO0XYz-c7Q-vzlVZ-DJTeXFxbAT0emPyo |
linkProvider | Elsevier |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=EP+142&rft.jtitle=Clinical+neurophysiology&rft.au=Bathe-Peters%2C+R.&rft.au=R%C3%B6nnefarth%2C+M.&rft.au=Robert%2C+F.&rft.au=Arvid%2C+K.&rft.date=2016-09-01&rft.issn=1388-2457&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e301&rft.epage=e302&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.clinph.2016.05.181&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1016_j_clinph_2016_05_181 |
thumbnail_m | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.clinicalkey.com%2Fck-thumbnails%2F13882457%2FS1388245716X00089%2Fcov150h.gif |