Literature DB >> 2461286

An analysis of peripheral motor nerve stimulation in humans using the magnetic coil.

P J Maccabee1, V E Amassian, R Q Cracco, J A Cadwell.   

Abstract

We compared conventional electrical and magnetic coil (MC) stimulation of distal median nerve in 10 normal subjects and 1 patient. Orthogonal (90 degrees to volar forearm)-longitudinal (the plane of the MC aligned with the long axis of nerve or wire), tilted (to 45 degrees) longitudinal, and tangential edge orientations elicited maximal or near maximal compound motor axon potentials (CMAPs) without simultaneous co-activation of ulnar nerve. Transverse and symmetrical tangential orientations were inefficient. A simulation study of an ideal volume conductor confirmed these findings by predicting that the maximum current density was near the outer edge of the MC and not at the center where the magnetic flux intensity is maximal. An orthogonal-longitudinal MC induces a current in the adjacent volume conductor (for example elbow or wrist), which flows in the same circular direction as in the MC. This differs from a tangentially orientated MC which classically elicits current flow in the volume conductor opposite in circular direction to that in the MC. Amplitude and latency of the CMAP were both altered, but not identically, by changing the intensity of MC and cathodal stimuli. Rotating an orthogonal-longitudinal MC through 180 degrees, thus reversing the direction of current flow, elicited single fiber muscle action potentials whose peak latencies differed at most by 100 microseconds. Thus, the (virtual) cathode and anode are significantly closer (i.e., 5-6 mm) with MC than with electrical stimulation where they are at least 20 mm apart. A disadvantage of MC stimulation is the imprecision in defining exactly where the distally propagating nerve impulse originates. In different subjects, using maximum output and orthogonal or tilted (to 45 degrees) longitudinal orientations, the calculated site of excitation in the median nerve varied 2-15 mm distal to the midpoint of the contacting edge of the MC. This limits the usefulness of the MC in its current configuration for determining distal motor latencies. Future advances in MC design may overcome these difficulties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 2461286     DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(88)90150-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0013-4694


  10 in total

1.  Magnetic and electrical stimulation of undulating nerve fibres: a simulation study.

Authors:  V Schnabel; J J Struijk
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 2.  Occupational exposure in MRI.

Authors:  D W McRobbie
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Coupling Magnetically Induced Electric Fields to Neurons: Longitudinal and Transverse Activation.

Authors:  Boshuo Wang; Warren M Grill; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 4.  The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Zhi-De Deng
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2017-04-26

5.  Magnetic coil stimulation of straight and bent amphibian and mammalian peripheral nerve in vitro: locus of excitation.

Authors:  P J Maccabee; V E Amassian; L P Eberle; R Q Cracco
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Impairment of visual perception and visual short term memory scanning by transcranial magnetic stimulation of occipital cortex.

Authors:  G Beckers; V Hömberg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Differential activation of nerve fibers with magnetic stimulation in humans.

Authors:  Eric C Tuday; Kenneth S Olree; Kenneth W Horch
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2006-07-24       Impact factor: 3.288

8.  Excitatory and inhibitory responses to cervical root magnetic stimulation in healthy subjects.

Authors:  E Ruiu; J Valls-Sole
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2021-10-30

9.  Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Young-Ho Lim; Ji Min Song; Eun-Hi Choi; Jang Woo Lee
Journal:  Ann Rehabil Med       Date:  2018-04-30

10.  Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Nerve Stimulation (rPMS) as Adjuvant Therapy Reduces Skeletal Muscle Reflex Activity.

Authors:  Volker R Zschorlich; Martin Hillebrecht; Tammam Tanjour; Fengxue Qi; Frank Behrendt; Timo Kirschstein; Rüdiger Köhling
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 4.003

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.