Literature DB >> 33862144

Comparing cortico-motor hotspot identification methods in the lower extremities post-stroke: MEP amplitude vs. latency.

J H Kindred1, J J Cash2, J B Ergle2, C C Charalambous3, E C Wonsetler4, M G Bowden5.   

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a technique used to probe and measure cortico-motor responses of the nervous system. However, lower extremity (LE) specific methodology has been slow to develop. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated what motor evoked potential metric, amplitude (MEPamp) or latency (MEPlat), best distinguished the motor-cortical target, i.e. hotspot, of the tibialis anterior and soleus post-stroke. Twenty-three participants with stroke were included in this investigation. Neuronavigation was used to map hotspots, derived via MEPamp and MEPlat, over a 3cm × 5cm grid. Distances between points with the greatest response within a session and between days were compared. Both criterion, amplitude and latency, provided poor identification of locations between trials within a session, and between multiple visits. Identified hotspots were similar only 15 % and 8% of the time between two assessments within the same session, for amplitude and latency respectively. However, MEPamp was more consistent in identifying hotspots, evidenced by locations being less spatially distant from each other (Amplitude: 1.4 cm (SD 0.10) Latency: 1.7 (SD 1.04), P = 0.008) within a session and between days (Amplitude: 1.3 cm (SD 0.95), Latency 1.9 cm (SD 1.14), P = 0.004). While more work is needed to develop LE specific methodology for TMS, especially as it applies to investigating gait impairments, MEPamp appears to be a more consistent criterion for hotspot identification when compared to MEPlat. It is recommended that future works continue to use MEPamp when identifying tibialis anterior and soleus hotspots using neuronavigation. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Corticomotor response; Double cone coil; Neuronavigation; Soleus; Stroke; Tibialis anterior

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33862144      PMCID: PMC8117067          DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2021.135884

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Lett        ISSN: 0304-3940            Impact factor:   3.197


  34 in total

1.  Focality assessment in transcranial magnetic stimulation with double and cone coils.

Authors:  Eugen R Lontis; Michael Voigt; Johannes J Struijk
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.177

2.  Systematic assessment of training-induced changes in corticospinal output to hand using frameless stereotaxic transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Kleim; Erin D Kleim; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 13.491

3.  False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  Mark van de Ruit; Michael J Grey
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Lower limb muscle activation during the sit-to-stand task in subjects who have had a stroke.

Authors:  Cecília Prudente; Fátima Rodrigues-de-Paula; Christina D C M Faria
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.159

5.  Nonphysiological factors in navigated TMS studies; confounding covariates and valid intracortical estimates.

Authors:  Sein Schmidt; Rouven Bathe-Peters; Robert Fleischmann; Maria Rönnefarth; Michael Scholz; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Effect of lesion location on upper limb motor recovery after stroke.

Authors:  F N Shelton; M J Reding
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Absence of a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-Induced Lower Limb Corticomotor Response Does Not Affect Walking Speed in Chronic Stroke Survivors.

Authors:  Anjali Sivaramakrishnan; Sangeetha Madhavan
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 8.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Simone Rossi; Mark Hallett; Paolo M Rossini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Biologically Based Assay of Lower Extremity Impairment and Gait Velocity.

Authors:  Heather T Peters; Kari Dunning; Samir Belagaje; Brett M Kissela; Jun Ying; Jarmo Laine; Stephen J Page
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 3.599

10.  Resting motor threshold and magnetic field output of the figure-of-8 and the double-cone coil.

Authors:  Martin Schecklmann; Maximilian Schmaußer; Felix Klinger; Peter M Kreuzer; Lars Krenkel; Berthold Langguth
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  1 in total

1.  Application of a Brain-Computer Interface System with Visual and Motor Feedback in Limb and Brain Functional Rehabilitation after Stroke: Case Report.

Authors:  Wen Gao; Zhengzhe Cui; Yang Yu; Jing Mao; Jun Xu; Leilei Ji; Xiuli Kan; Xianshan Shen; Xueming Li; Shiqiang Zhu; Yongfeng Hong
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-08-16
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.