OBJECTIVE: To investigate inter-individual variation in the efficiency of magnetic brainstem stimulation (BST) with regard to the stimulation site. METHODS: We studied 31 healthy subjects, using a right hand muscle as a recording site. Three stimulation sites were compared: BST over the inion (inion BST), and BST over the midpoint between the inion and the right (ipsilateral BST) or left (contralateral BST) mastoid process. Five suprathreshold BSTs were performed for each stimulation site using the same stimulation intensity. The mean peak-to-peak amplitudes of motor evoked potential (MEP) were compared. The active motor threshold (AMT) and onset latency for inion BST and ipsilateral BST were also measured and compared. RESULTS: Contralateral BST did not evoke discernible MEPs in most subjects. In 21 subjects (67.7%), ipsilateral BST elicited larger MEPs than inion BST did, and AMT for ipsilateral BST was lower than or equal to the AMT for inion BST in all subjects. Ipsilateral BST elicited shorter latency in such subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The suitable stimulation site for BST differed among subjects. About two-thirds showed larger MEP to ipsilateral BST. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings might help us to find an efficient stimulation site for BST in each subject.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate inter-individual variation in the efficiency of magnetic brainstem stimulation (BST) with regard to the stimulation site. METHODS: We studied 31 healthy subjects, using a right hand muscle as a recording site. Three stimulation sites were compared: BST over the inion (inion BST), and BST over the midpoint between the inion and the right (ipsilateral BST) or left (contralateral BST) mastoid process. Five suprathreshold BSTs were performed for each stimulation site using the same stimulation intensity. The mean peak-to-peak amplitudes of motor evoked potential (MEP) were compared. The active motor threshold (AMT) and onset latency for inion BST and ipsilateral BST were also measured and compared. RESULTS: Contralateral BST did not evoke discernible MEPs in most subjects. In 21 subjects (67.7%), ipsilateral BST elicited larger MEPs than inion BST did, and AMT for ipsilateral BST was lower than or equal to the AMT for inion BST in all subjects. Ipsilateral BST elicited shorter latency in such subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The suitable stimulation site for BST differed among subjects. About two-thirds showed larger MEP to ipsilateral BST. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings might help us to find an efficient stimulation site for BST in each subject.
Authors: G Grimaldi; G P Argyropoulos; A Boehringer; P Celnik; M J Edwards; R Ferrucci; J M Galea; S J Groiss; K Hiraoka; P Kassavetis; E Lesage; M Manto; R C Miall; A Priori; A Sadnicka; Y Ugawa; U Ziemann Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Kevin D'Ostilio; Stefan M Goetz; Ricci Hannah; Matteo Ciocca; Raffaella Chieffo; Jui-Cheng A Chen; Angel V Peterchev; John C Rothwell Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 3.708