Literature DB >> 21110222

The influence of gender, hand dominance, and upper extremity length on motor evoked potentials.

Scott C Livingston1, Howard P Goodkin, Christopher D Ingersoll.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced through transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are susceptible to several sources of variability including gender, hand dominance, and upper extremity length. Conflicting evidence on the relationship between MEPs and subject characteristics has been reported.
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine if MEPs are different between genders and between right- and left-hand dominant subjects, and to determine if MEPs are correlated with upper extremity length.
METHODS: Using a case-control design, we recorded MEPs from 45 healthy subjects (age 21.6 ± 2.0 years; 24 females, 21 males) with a MagStim200 stimulating coil positioned over the primary motor cortex. Evoked responses were recorded by surface EMG electrodes from the abductor pollicis brevis, abductor digiti minimi and first dorsal interosseous muscles contralateral to the site of TMS. Evoked responses were analyzed to determine motor thresholds, latencies and amplitudes. Central motor conduction time (CMCT) was estimated from MEP, M response, and F wave latencies.
RESULTS: Gender and hand dominance did not significantly influence thresholds, MEP amplitudes, or CMCT (P > .05). MEP latencies were moderately correlated with upper extremity length (R = .62 right median, R = .50 left median, R = .45 right ulnar, R = .51 left ulnar MEP latency, P < .01). An ANCOVA using upper extremity length as the covariate demonstrated no significant differences between genders (Wilk's λ = .89, F = 2.45, P = .10). After adjusting MEP latencies to upper limb length, no significant differences were observed between dominant and non-dominant limbs (F = .002, P = .97 median, and F = .03, P = .56 ulnar) nor between genders (F = 2.7, P = .11 median; F = .05, P = .82 ulnar).
CONCLUSIONS: Variability in MEP latencies between genders was due to differences in upper extremity length. Adjusting MEP latencies to upper limb length is recommended for more accurate comparison and meaningful interpretation between subjects. Hand dominance and gender do not significantly influence motor thresholds, MEP amplitude, or CMCT.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21110222     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-010-9267-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  38 in total

1.  Nonspecific facilitation of responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  B Andersen; K M Rösler; M Lauritzen
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.217

2.  The clinical usefulness of magnetic cortical stimulation.

Authors:  N M Murray
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1992-04

3.  Reliability of the motor evoked potentials elicited through magnetic stimulation at three sites.

Authors:  Richard Lefebvre; André Pépin; Pierre-Félix Louis; Jean P Boucher
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.437

4.  Study of central and peripheral motor conduction in normal subjects.

Authors:  A Ghezzi; L Callea; M Zaffaroni; A Zibetti; R Montanini
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 3.209

5.  Optimal transcranial magnetic stimulation sites for the assessment of motor function.

Authors:  J R Toleikis; T B Sloan; A K Ronai
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1991-12

6.  A new method for reproducible coil positioning in transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping.

Authors:  P C Miranda; M de Carvalho; I Conceição; M L Luis; E Ducla-Soares
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1997-04

7.  Corticomotor threshold to magnetic stimulation: normal values and repeatability.

Authors:  K R Mills; K A Nithi
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 3.217

8.  Motor evoked potentials with magnetic stimulation: correlations with height.

Authors:  N S Chu
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1989 Nov-Dec

9.  Scope of a technique for electrical stimulation of human brain, spinal cord, and muscle.

Authors:  P A Merton; D K Hill; H B Morton; C D Marsden
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1982-09-11       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Central motor tract propagation in man: studies with non-invasive, unifocal, scalp stimulation.

Authors:  P M Rossini; M Caramia; F Zarola
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1987-07-14       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system: an international consensus study.

Authors:  Lucy Chipchase; Siobhan Schabrun; Leonardo Cohen; Paul Hodges; Michael Ridding; John Rothwell; Janet Taylor; Ulf Ziemann
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Age and gender effects on submental motor-evoked potentials.

Authors:  Oshrat Sella; Richard D Jones; Maggie-Lee Huckabee
Journal:  Age (Dordr)       Date:  2014-12-11

3.  Changes in motor-evoked potential latency during grasping after tetraplegia.

Authors:  Hang Jin Jo; Monica A Perez
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Motor unit number index examination in dominant and non-dominant hand muscles.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Li; Wensheng He; Charles Li; Ying-Chih Wang; Brooke A Slavens; Ping Zhou
Journal:  Laterality       Date:  2015-07-31

5.  The Effects of Waveform and Current Direction on the Efficacy and Test-Retest Reliability of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Paula Davila-Pérez; Ali Jannati; Peter J Fried; Javier Cudeiro Mazaira; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-10-06       Impact factor: 3.590

6.  The variability of motor evoked potential latencies in neurosurgical motor mapping by preoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Nico Sollmann; Lucia Bulubas; Noriko Tanigawa; Claus Zimmer; Bernhard Meyer; Sandro M Krieg
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 3.288

7.  Age, Height, and Sex on Motor Evoked Potentials: Translational Data From a Large Italian Cohort in a Clinical Environment.

Authors:  Mariagiovanna Cantone; Giuseppe Lanza; Luisa Vinciguerra; Valentina Puglisi; Riccardo Ricceri; Francesco Fisicaro; Carla Vagli; Rita Bella; Raffaele Ferri; Giovanni Pennisi; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Manuela Pennisi
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Cortical mapping of the infraspinatus muscle in healthy individuals.

Authors:  Suzy Ngomo; Catherine Mercier; Jean-Sébastien Roy
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.288

9.  High visual demand following theta burst stimulation modulates the effect on visual cortex excitability.

Authors:  Sabrina Brückner; Thomas Kammer
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Hemispheric differences in corticospinal excitability and in transcallosal inhibition in relation to degree of handedness.

Authors:  Travis Davidson; François Tremblay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.