Reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation measures of afferent inhibition
Reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation measures of afferent inhibition
复制标题
传入抑制经颅磁刺激测量的可靠性
DOI：
10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146394
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
A. Nelson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Claudia V. Turco;Angelina Pesevski;P. McNicholas;L. Beaulieu;A. Nelson
短潜伏期传入抑制（SAI）和长潜伏期传入抑制（LAI）是众所周知的经颅磁刺激（TMS）范式，用于探测感觉运动系统。到目前为止，有一个缺乏研究检查这些神经生理措施的可靠性。需要这些信息来验证传入抑制作为神经功能生物标志物的效用。本研究的目的是量化的绝对可靠性，相对可靠性，和最小可检测的变化（SDC）的SAI和LAI使用重测范式。30名健康个体（20.9 ± 2.5岁）参加了两次会议（会议间隔约7天）。可靠性进行了评估组内相关系数（ICC），测量标准误（SEMeas），和SDC。结果表明，LAI和SAI具有由ICC确定的较差至中等的相对可靠性，其中指神经LAI显示出最高的相对可靠性（最高ICC，最小置信区间）。%SEMeasindicated大量的测量误差在所有的传入抑制措施，LAI表现出更多的测量误差比SAI。SDC在个体水平（SDCindiv）较大，但分析表明，SDC在组水平（SDCgroup）显著降低。我们的研究结果表明，数字神经叶面积指数是最可靠的结果，以区分个人之间的样本。此外，结果表明，SAI和LAI是不适当的指标，个人的神经生理变化，但可以可靠地检测组平均数据提供样本量是足够的变化。
Short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) and long-latency afferent inhibition (LAI) are well-known transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms used to probe the sensorimotor system. To date, there is a paucity of research examining the reliability of these neurophysiological measures. This information is required to validate the utility of afferent inhibition as a biomarker of neural function. The goal of this study was to quantify the absolute reliability, relative reliability, and smallest detectable change (SDC) of SAI and LAI using a test-retest paradigm. 30 healthy individuals (20.9 ± 2.5 years) participated in two sessions (intersession interval of ~7 days). Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEMeas), and SDC. The results show that LAI and SAI had poor-to-moderate relative reliability as determined by the ICC, with digital nerve LAI displaying the highest relative reliability (highest ICC with smallest confidence interval). The %SEMeasindicated a large amount of measurement error in all measures of afferent inhibition, with LAI exhibiting more measurement error than SAI. The SDC was large at the individual level (SDCindiv), but analyses showed that the SDC is significantly reduced at the group-level (SDCgroup). Our results indicate that digital nerve LAI is the most reliable outcome to differentiate between individuals within a sample. Further, results suggest that SAI and LAI are not appropriate indicators of individual neurophysiological change across time but can reliably detect changes in group-averaged data providing sample sizes are sufficient.