Alan J Pearce1, Ross A Clark, Dawson J Kidgell. 1. Cognitive and Exercise Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. alan.pearce@deakin.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The stimulus-response (S-R) curve is a well accepted constituent in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies. However, it has been suggested that parameters of the S-R curve differ when stimuli are provided in a "ramped" (measured steps from low to high intensity), or "random" fashion. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the parameters of the S-R curve between either methodologies. METHODS: Using a randomised cross-over design, 10 healthy participants (29.6 ± 6.4 yrs, 3 f) completed "ramped" or "random" curves in biceps brachii (BB) and first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscles of both limbs. Curves were compared using mixed-factor ANOVA and correlated between limbs and methodologies. RESULTS: No differences (P > 0.05) and high correlations (range 0.71-0.97; P < 0.001) were observed in BB and FDI data between curves. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that either methodology provides similar parameters of the S-R curve in healthy participants.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The stimulus-response (S-R) curve is a well accepted constituent in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies. However, it has been suggested that parameters of the S-R curve differ when stimuli are provided in a "ramped" (measured steps from low to high intensity), or "random" fashion. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the parameters of the S-R curve between either methodologies. METHODS: Using a randomised cross-over design, 10 healthy participants (29.6 ± 6.4 yrs, 3 f) completed "ramped" or "random" curves in biceps brachii (BB) and first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscles of both limbs. Curves were compared using mixed-factor ANOVA and correlated between limbs and methodologies. RESULTS: No differences (P > 0.05) and high correlations (range 0.71-0.97; P < 0.001) were observed in BB and FDI data between curves. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that either methodology provides similar parameters of the S-R curve in healthy participants.
Authors: Prisca R Bauer; Annika A de Goede; William M Stern; Adam D Pawley; Fahmida A Chowdhury; Robert M Helling; Romain Bouet; Stiliyan N Kalitzin; Gerhard H Visser; Sanjay M Sisodiya; John C Rothwell; Mark P Richardson; Michel J A M van Putten; Josemir W Sander Journal: Brain Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: C M Buetefisch; C Howard; C Korb; M W Haut; L Shuster; P Pergami; C Smith; G Hobbs Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-07-12 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Martin Sommer; Matteo Ciocca; Raffaella Chieffo; Paul Hammond; Andreas Neef; Walter Paulus; John C Rothwell; Ricci Hannah Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Hakuei Fujiyama; Jane Hyde; Mark R Hinder; Seok-Jin Kim; Graeme H McCormack; James C Vickers; Jeffery J Summers Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 5.750