Impact of coil position and electrophysiological monitoring on determination of motor thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation
Impact of coil position and electrophysiological monitoring on determination of motor thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.010
复制
发表时间：
2004-04-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Kaelin-Lang, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Conforto, AB;Z'Graggen, WJ;Kaelin-Lang, A
Objective: We compared motor and movement thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in healthy subjects and investigated the effect of different coil positions on thresholds and MEP (motor-evoked potential) amplitudes.Methods: The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) 'hot spot' and a standard scalp position were stimulated. APB resting motor threshold (APB MEP-MT) defined by the '5/10' electrophysiological method was compared with movement threshold (MOV-MT), defined by visualization of movements. Additionally, APB MEP-MTs were evaluated with the '3/6 method,' and MEPs were recorded at a stimulation intensity of 120% APB MEP-MT at each position.Results: APB MEP-MTs were significantly lower by stimulation of the 'hot spot' than of the standard position, and significantly lower than MOV-MTs (n = 15). There were no significant differences between the '3/6' and the '5/10' methods, or between APB MEP amplitudes by stimulating each position at 120% APB MEP-MT.Conclusions: Coil position and electrophysiological monitoring influenced motor threshold determinations. Performing 6 instead of 10 trials did not produce different threshold measurements. Adjustment of intensity according to APB MEP-MT at the stimulated position did not influence APB MEP amplitudes.Significance: Standardization of stimulation positions, nomenclature and criteria for threshold measurements should be considered in design and comparison of TMS protocols. (C) 2004 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
