OBJECTIVES: Resting motor threshold is the basic unit of dosing in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) research and practice. There is little consensus on how best to estimate resting motor threshold with TMS, and only a few tools and resources are readily available to TMS researchers. The current study investigates the accuracy and efficiency of 5 different approaches to motor threshold assessment for TMS research and practice applications. METHODS: Computer simulation models are used to test the efficiency and accuracy of 5 different adaptive parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) procedures. For each approach, data are presented with respect to the mean number of TMS trials necessary to reach the motor threshold estimate as well as the mean accuracy of the estimates. RESULTS: A simple nonparametric PEST procedure appears to provide the most accurate motor threshold estimates, but takes slightly longer (on average, 3.48 trials) to complete than a popular parametric alternative (maximum likelihood PEST). Recommendations are made for the best starting values for each of the approaches to maximize both efficiency and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the computer simulation data provided in this article, the authors review and suggest which techniques might best fit different TMS research and clinical situations. Lastly, a free user-friendly software package is described and made available on the world wide web that allows users to run all of the motor threshold estimation procedures discussed in this article for clinical and research applications.
OBJECTIVES: Resting motor threshold is the basic unit of dosing in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) research and practice. There is little consensus on how best to estimate resting motor threshold with TMS, and only a few tools and resources are readily available to TMS researchers. The current study investigates the accuracy and efficiency of 5 different approaches to motor threshold assessment for TMS research and practice applications. METHODS: Computer simulation models are used to test the efficiency and accuracy of 5 different adaptive parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) procedures. For each approach, data are presented with respect to the mean number of TMS trials necessary to reach the motor threshold estimate as well as the mean accuracy of the estimates. RESULTS: A simple nonparametric PEST procedure appears to provide the most accurate motor threshold estimates, but takes slightly longer (on average, 3.48 trials) to complete than a popular parametric alternative (maximum likelihood PEST). Recommendations are made for the best starting values for each of the approaches to maximize both efficiency and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the computer simulation data provided in this article, the authors review and suggest which techniques might best fit different TMS research and clinical situations. Lastly, a free user-friendly software package is described and made available on the world wide web that allows users to run all of the motor threshold estimation procedures discussed in this article for clinical and research applications.
Authors: Jeffrey J Borckardt; Scott T Reeves; Heather Frohman; Alok Madan; Mark P Jensen; David Patterson; Kelly Barth; A Richard Smith; Richard Gracely; Mark S George Journal: Pain Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: David H Avery; Paul Zarkowski; Daniel Krashin; Wang-Ku Rho; Chandra Wajdik; Jutta M Joesch; David R Haynor; Dedra Buchwald; Peter Roy-Byrne Journal: J ECT Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.635
Authors: Merideth A Addicott; Bruce Luber; Duy Nguyen; Hannah Palmer; Sarah H Lisanby; Lawrence Gregory Appelbaum Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2019-04-02
Authors: Joseph J Taylor; Daniel J Neitzke; George Khouri; Jeffrey J Borckardt; Ron Acierno; Peter W Tuerk; Matthew Schmidt; Mark S George Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Xingbao Li; Raffaella Ricci; Charles H Large; Berry Anderson; Ziad Nahas; Mark S George Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Bashar W Badran; Chloe E Glusman; Chris W Austelle; Shonna Jenkins; William H DeVries; Virginia Galbraith; Tiffani Thomas; Thomas G Adams; Mark S George; Gonzalo J Revuelta Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: F Andrew Kozel; Fenghua Tian; Sameer Dhamne; Paul E Croarkin; Shawn M McClintock; Alan Elliott; Kimberly S Mapes; Mustafa M Husain; Hanli Liu Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Joseph J Taylor; Jeffrey J Borckardt; Melanie Canterberry; Xingbao Li; Colleen A Hanlon; Truman R Brown; Mark S George Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 7.853