Gregory G Westin1, Bruce D Bassi2, Sarah H Lisanby3,4, Bruce Luber3,4. 1. University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA. 2. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While the standard has been to define motor threshold (MT) using EMG to measure motor cortex response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), another method of determining MT using visual observation of muscle twitch (OM-MT) has emerged in clinical and research use. We compared these two methods for determining MT. METHODS: Left motor cortex MTs were found in 20 healthy subjects. Employing the commonly-used relative frequency procedure and beginning from a clearly suprathreshold intensity, two raters used motor evoked potentials and finger movements respectively to determine EMG-MT and OM-MT. RESULTS: OM-MT was 11.3% higher than EMG-MT (p<0.001), ranging from 0% to 27.8%. In eight subjects, OM-MT was more than 10% higher than EMG-MT, with two greater than 25%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest using OM yields significantly higher MTs than EMG, and may lead to unsafe TMS in some individuals. In more than half of the subjects in the present study, use of their OM-MT for typical rTMS treatment of depression would have resulted in stimulation beyond safety limits. SIGNIFICANCE: For applications that involve stimulation near established safety limits and in the presence of factors that could elevate risk such as concomitant medications, EMG-MT is advisable, given that safety guidelines for TMS parameters were based on EMG-MT.
OBJECTIVE: While the standard has been to define motor threshold (MT) using EMG to measure motor cortex response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), another method of determining MT using visual observation of muscle twitch (OM-MT) has emerged in clinical and research use. We compared these two methods for determining MT. METHODS: Left motor cortex MTs were found in 20 healthy subjects. Employing the commonly-used relative frequency procedure and beginning from a clearly suprathreshold intensity, two raters used motor evoked potentials and finger movements respectively to determine EMG-MT and OM-MT. RESULTS:OM-MT was 11.3% higher than EMG-MT (p<0.001), ranging from 0% to 27.8%. In eight subjects, OM-MT was more than 10% higher than EMG-MT, with two greater than 25%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest using OM yields significantly higher MTs than EMG, and may lead to unsafe TMS in some individuals. In more than half of the subjects in the present study, use of their OM-MT for typical rTMS treatment of depression would have resulted in stimulation beyond safety limits. SIGNIFICANCE: For applications that involve stimulation near established safety limits and in the presence of factors that could elevate risk such as concomitant medications, EMG-MT is advisable, given that safety guidelines for TMS parameters were based on EMG-MT.
Authors: Bashar W Badran; Martina Ly; William H DeVries; Chloe E Glusman; Angela Willis; Saxby Pridmore; Mark S George Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Stefan M Goetz; S M Mahdi Alavi; Zhi-De Deng; Angel V Peterchev Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Shawn M McClintock; Irving M Reti; Linda L Carpenter; William M McDonald; Marc Dubin; Stephan F Taylor; Ian A Cook; John O'Reardon; Mustafa M Husain; Christopher Wall; Andrew D Krystal; Shirlene M Sampson; Oscar Morales; Brent G Nelson; Vassilios Latoussakis; Mark S George; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Laura K Case; Claire M Laubacher; Håkan Olausson; Binquan Wang; Primavera A Spagnolo; M Catherine Bushnell Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Christopher A Wall; Paul E Croarkin; Mandie J Maroney-Smith; Laura M Haugen; Joshua M Baruth; Mark A Frye; Shirlene M Sampson; John D Port Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 2.576