Zeb D Jonker1, Rick van der Vliet2, Christopher M Hauwert3, Carolin Gaiser3, Joke H M Tulen4, Jos N van der Geest3, Opher Donchin5, Gerard M Ribbers6, Maarten A Frens7, Ruud W Selles8. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Rijndam Rehabilitation Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: z.jonker@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel; Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel. 6. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Rijndam Rehabilitation Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus University College, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Rijndam Rehabilitation Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation motor map parameters can be used to quantify plasticity in the human motor cortex. The golden standard uses a counting analysis of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) acquired with a predefined grid. Recently, digital reconstruction methods have been proposed, allowing MEPs to be acquired with a faster pseudorandom procedure. However, the reliability of these reconstruction methods has never been compared to the golden standard. OBJECTIVE: To compare the absolute reliability of the reconstruction methods with the golden standard. METHODS: In 21 healthy subjects, both grid and pseudorandom acquisition were performed twice on the first day and once on the second day. The standard error of measurement was calculated for the counting analysis and the digital reconstructions. RESULTS: The standard error of measurement was at least equal using digital reconstructions. CONCLUSION: Pseudorandom acquisition and digital reconstruction can be used in intervention studies without sacrificing reliability.
BACKGROUND: Changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation motor map parameters can be used to quantify plasticity in the human motor cortex. The golden standard uses a counting analysis of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) acquired with a predefined grid. Recently, digital reconstruction methods have been proposed, allowing MEPs to be acquired with a faster pseudorandom procedure. However, the reliability of these reconstruction methods has never been compared to the golden standard. OBJECTIVE: To compare the absolute reliability of the reconstruction methods with the golden standard. METHODS: In 21 healthy subjects, both grid and pseudorandom acquisition were performed twice on the first day and once on the second day. The standard error of measurement was calculated for the counting analysis and the digital reconstructions. RESULTS: The standard error of measurement was at least equal using digital reconstructions. CONCLUSION: Pseudorandom acquisition and digital reconstruction can be used in intervention studies without sacrificing reliability.
Authors: Nicolette Driscoll; Brian Erickson; Brendan B Murphy; Andrew G Richardson; Gregory Robbins; Nicholas V Apollo; Georgios Mentzelopoulos; Tyler Mathis; Kanit Hantanasirisakul; Puneet Bagga; Sarah E Gullbrand; Matthew Sergison; Ravinder Reddy; John A Wolf; H Isaac Chen; Timothy H Lucas; Timothy R Dillingham; Kathryn A Davis; Yury Gogotsi; John D Medaglia; Flavia Vitale Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 19.319
Authors: Michael B Gerber; Alasdair C McLean; Samuel J Stephen; Alex G Chalco; Usman M Arshad; Gary W Thickbroom; Josh Silverstein; K Zoe Tsagaris; Amy Kuceyeski; Kathleen Friel; Taiza E G Santos; Dylan J Edwards Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Gabriela P Tardelli; Victor H Souza; Renan H Matsuda; Marco A C Garcia; Pavel A Novikov; Maria A Nazarova; Oswaldo Baffa Journal: Brain Topogr Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.275
Authors: Rocco Cavaleri; Lucy S Chipchase; Hugo Massé-Alarie; Siobhan M Schabrun; Muath A Shraim; Paul W Hodges Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 2.708