Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian1, Sarah M Roelle1, Corin E Bonnett1, Daniel Janini1, Nicole M Varnerin1, David A Cunningham1, Jennifer S Sharma1, Kelsey A Potter-Baker1, Xiaofeng Wang2, Guang H Yue3, Ela B Plow4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States. 3. Human Performance and Engineering Research, Kessler Foundation, West Orange, NJ, United States. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States; Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States. Electronic address: plowe2@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reproducibility of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) metrics is essential in accurately tracking recovery and disease. However, majority of evidence pertains to reproducibility of metrics for distal upper limb muscles. We investigate for the first time, reliability of corticospinal physiology for a large proximal muscle - the biceps brachii and relate how varying statistical analyses can influence interpretations. METHODS: 14 young right-handed healthy participants completed two sessions assessing resting motor threshold (RMT), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), motor map and intra-cortical inhibition (ICI) from the left biceps brachii. Analyses included paired t-tests, Pearson's, intra-class (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Unlike paired t-tests, ICC, CCC and Pearson's were >0.6 indicating good reliability for RMTs, MEP intensities and locations of map; however values were <0.3 for MEP responses and ICI. CONCLUSIONS: Corticospinal physiology, defining excitability and output in terms of intensity of the TMS device, and spatial loci are the most reliable metrics for the biceps. MEPs and variables based on MEPs are less reliable since biceps receives fewer cortico-motor-neuronal projections. Statistical tests of agreement and associations are more powerful reliability indices than inferential tests. SIGNIFICANCE: Reliable metrics of proximal muscles when translated to a larger number of participants would serve to sensitively track and prognosticate function in neurological disorders such as stroke where proximal recovery precedes distal.
OBJECTIVE: Reproducibility of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) metrics is essential in accurately tracking recovery and disease. However, majority of evidence pertains to reproducibility of metrics for distal upper limb muscles. We investigate for the first time, reliability of corticospinal physiology for a large proximal muscle - the biceps brachii and relate how varying statistical analyses can influence interpretations. METHODS: 14 young right-handed healthy participants completed two sessions assessing resting motor threshold (RMT), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), motor map and intra-cortical inhibition (ICI) from the left biceps brachii. Analyses included paired t-tests, Pearson's, intra-class (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Unlike paired t-tests, ICC, CCC and Pearson's were >0.6 indicating good reliability for RMTs, MEP intensities and locations of map; however values were <0.3 for MEP responses and ICI. CONCLUSIONS: Corticospinal physiology, defining excitability and output in terms of intensity of the TMS device, and spatial loci are the most reliable metrics for the biceps. MEPs and variables based on MEPs are less reliable since biceps receives fewer cortico-motor-neuronal projections. Statistical tests of agreement and associations are more powerful reliability indices than inferential tests. SIGNIFICANCE: Reliable metrics of proximal muscles when translated to a larger number of participants would serve to sensitively track and prognosticate function in neurological disorders such as stroke where proximal recovery precedes distal.
Authors: M P Malcolm; W J Triggs; K E Light; O Shechtman; G Khandekar; L J Gonzalez Rothi Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Sebastian H Doeltgen; Michael C Ridding; Greg A O'Beirne; John Dalrymple-Alford; Maggie-Lee Huckabee Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Cathy M Stinear; P Alan Barber; Peter R Smale; James P Coxon; Melanie K Fleming; Winston D Byblow Journal: Brain Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Lumy Sawaki; Andrew J Butler; Xiaoyan Leng; Peter A Wassenaar; Yousef M Mohammad; Sarah Blanton; K Sathian; Deborah S Nichols-Larsen; Steven L Wolf; David C Good; George F Wittenberg Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: K A Potter-Baker; D P Janini; F S Frost; P Chabra; N Varnerin; D A Cunningham; V Sankarasubramanian; E B Plow Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 2.772
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
Authors: Lisa Tedesco Triccas; Ann-Marie Hughes; Jane H Burridge; Amy E Din; Martin Warner; Simon Brown; Mahalekeshmi Desikan; John Rothwell; Geert Verheyden Journal: J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng Date: 2018-04-02
Authors: Ali Jannati; Peter J Fried; Gabrielle Block; Lindsay M Oberman; Alexander Rotenberg; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 4.677