Comparison of Rossini–Rothwell and adaptive threshold-hunting methods on the stability of TMS induced motor evoked potentials amplitudes

Thusharika Dissanayaka, Maryam Zoghi, Michael Farrell, Gary Egan, Shapour Jaberzadeh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine intra- and inter-session reliability of Rossini–Rothwell (R–R) and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) methods on TMS-induced MEPs and comparison of these two methods on RMT. Twelve healthy individuals participated in this study three times (T1, T2 and T3) over two days. TMS was applied using both R–R and PEST to estimate RMT and average of 25 MEPs were acquired at each of the three time points. The intra-class correlation coefficient indicated high intra-session reliability in the MEP amplitudes for both methods (0.79 and 0.88, R–R and PEST respectively). The RMT and MEP amplitudes had higher inter-session reliability in both methods (0.99 and 0.998, R–R and PEST respectively; 0.84 and 0.76, R–R and PEST respectively). There was no significant difference between methods for RMT at both T1 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.7% ± 7.7% vs. 33.8% ± 7.6%, p = 0.75) and T3 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.5% ± 7.3% vs. 33.7% ± 7.3%, p = 0.19). There was a significant positive correlation between the methods' estimates of RMT, with PEST requiring significantly fewer stimuli. This study shows that the R–R and PEST methods have high intra-and inter-session reliability and the same precision, with PEST having the advantage over R–R in speed of estimation of RMT.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1758-1765
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Neuroscience Research
Volume96
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2018

Keywords

  • healthy human
  • motor cortex
  • motor evoked potentials
  • resting motor threshold
  • transcranial magnetic stimulation

Cite this

@article{1583b779888644929fae572e8b2fe2d2,
title = "Comparison of Rossini–Rothwell and adaptive threshold-hunting methods on the stability of TMS induced motor evoked potentials amplitudes",
abstract = "Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine intra- and inter-session reliability of Rossini–Rothwell (R–R) and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) methods on TMS-induced MEPs and comparison of these two methods on RMT. Twelve healthy individuals participated in this study three times (T1, T2 and T3) over two days. TMS was applied using both R–R and PEST to estimate RMT and average of 25 MEPs were acquired at each of the three time points. The intra-class correlation coefficient indicated high intra-session reliability in the MEP amplitudes for both methods (0.79 and 0.88, R–R and PEST respectively). The RMT and MEP amplitudes had higher inter-session reliability in both methods (0.99 and 0.998, R–R and PEST respectively; 0.84 and 0.76, R–R and PEST respectively). There was no significant difference between methods for RMT at both T1 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.7{\%} ± 7.7{\%} vs. 33.8{\%} ± 7.6{\%}, p = 0.75) and T3 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.5{\%} ± 7.3{\%} vs. 33.7{\%} ± 7.3{\%}, p = 0.19). There was a significant positive correlation between the methods' estimates of RMT, with PEST requiring significantly fewer stimuli. This study shows that the R–R and PEST methods have high intra-and inter-session reliability and the same precision, with PEST having the advantage over R–R in speed of estimation of RMT.",
keywords = "healthy human, motor cortex, motor evoked potentials, resting motor threshold, transcranial magnetic stimulation",
author = "Thusharika Dissanayaka and Maryam Zoghi and Michael Farrell and Gary Egan and Shapour Jaberzadeh",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1002/jnr.24319",
language = "English",
volume = "96",
pages = "1758--1765",
journal = "Journal of Neuroscience Research",
issn = "0360-4012",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

Comparison of Rossini–Rothwell and adaptive threshold-hunting methods on the stability of TMS induced motor evoked potentials amplitudes. / Dissanayaka, Thusharika; Zoghi, Maryam; Farrell, Michael; Egan, Gary; Jaberzadeh, Shapour.

In: Journal of Neuroscience Research, Vol. 96, No. 11, 11.2018, p. 1758-1765.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Rossini–Rothwell and adaptive threshold-hunting methods on the stability of TMS induced motor evoked potentials amplitudes

AU - Dissanayaka, Thusharika

AU - Zoghi, Maryam

AU - Farrell, Michael

AU - Egan, Gary

AU - Jaberzadeh, Shapour

PY - 2018/11

Y1 - 2018/11

N2 - Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine intra- and inter-session reliability of Rossini–Rothwell (R–R) and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) methods on TMS-induced MEPs and comparison of these two methods on RMT. Twelve healthy individuals participated in this study three times (T1, T2 and T3) over two days. TMS was applied using both R–R and PEST to estimate RMT and average of 25 MEPs were acquired at each of the three time points. The intra-class correlation coefficient indicated high intra-session reliability in the MEP amplitudes for both methods (0.79 and 0.88, R–R and PEST respectively). The RMT and MEP amplitudes had higher inter-session reliability in both methods (0.99 and 0.998, R–R and PEST respectively; 0.84 and 0.76, R–R and PEST respectively). There was no significant difference between methods for RMT at both T1 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.7% ± 7.7% vs. 33.8% ± 7.6%, p = 0.75) and T3 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.5% ± 7.3% vs. 33.7% ± 7.3%, p = 0.19). There was a significant positive correlation between the methods' estimates of RMT, with PEST requiring significantly fewer stimuli. This study shows that the R–R and PEST methods have high intra-and inter-session reliability and the same precision, with PEST having the advantage over R–R in speed of estimation of RMT.

AB - Several methods can be used to determine the resting motor threshold (RMT) and by that recording transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs). However, no research has compared the test retest reliability of these methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine intra- and inter-session reliability of Rossini–Rothwell (R–R) and parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) methods on TMS-induced MEPs and comparison of these two methods on RMT. Twelve healthy individuals participated in this study three times (T1, T2 and T3) over two days. TMS was applied using both R–R and PEST to estimate RMT and average of 25 MEPs were acquired at each of the three time points. The intra-class correlation coefficient indicated high intra-session reliability in the MEP amplitudes for both methods (0.79 and 0.88, R–R and PEST respectively). The RMT and MEP amplitudes had higher inter-session reliability in both methods (0.99 and 0.998, R–R and PEST respectively; 0.84 and 0.76, R–R and PEST respectively). There was no significant difference between methods for RMT at both T1 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.7% ± 7.7% vs. 33.8% ± 7.6%, p = 0.75) and T3 (maximum stimulator output of R–R vs. PEST, 33.5% ± 7.3% vs. 33.7% ± 7.3%, p = 0.19). There was a significant positive correlation between the methods' estimates of RMT, with PEST requiring significantly fewer stimuli. This study shows that the R–R and PEST methods have high intra-and inter-session reliability and the same precision, with PEST having the advantage over R–R in speed of estimation of RMT.

KW - healthy human

KW - motor cortex

KW - motor evoked potentials

KW - resting motor threshold

KW - transcranial magnetic stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052917559&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jnr.24319

DO - 10.1002/jnr.24319

M3 - Article

VL - 96

SP - 1758

EP - 1765

JO - Journal of Neuroscience Research

JF - Journal of Neuroscience Research

SN - 0360-4012

IS - 11

ER -