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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical neurophysiology Vol. 127; no. 9; pp. e301 - e302
Main Authors Bathe-Peters, R, Rönnefarth, M, Robert, F, Arvid, K, Brandt, S.A, Schmidt, S
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 01.09.2016
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1388-2457
DOI10.1016/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