The effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation test intensity on the amplitude, variability and reliability of motor evoked potentials

High degrees of variability reported in Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) assessment of corticospinal excitability (CSE) highlight the need to investigate its reliability as an assessment tool. This study investigated the effect of TMS test intensity on the amplitude, variability and test-retest reliability of motor evoked potentials (MEP). Twenty-five MEPs were recorded at 105%, 120%, 135%, 150% and 165% of resting motor threshold across three sessions in twelve participants. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), recruitment curve gradients and standardised z-value SDs were utilized to investigate the effect of TMS test intensity on MEP amplitude and variability. Test-retest reliability of MEP amplitude was assessed using RM-ANOVA and intraclass correlations (ICC). RM-ANOVA reported MEP amplitude significantly increased between 105-120% and 120-135% with non-significant increases thereafter. Recruitment curve gradients reduced as TMS test intensity increased. Standardised z-value SDs reported MEP amplitude variability reduced as TMS test intensity increased with the only significant reduction occurring between 120% and 135%. RM-ANOVA reported no significant effect of time on MEP amplitude, indicating agreement between sessions. ICCs indicated significant intra- and inter-session reliability for all TMS test intensities except for 105%. The only significant reduction in variability and final significant increase in MEP amplitude occurred between the same TMS test intensities. Reduced variability and increased reliability at higher TMS test intensities validate the use of higher TMS test intensities to assess changes in CSE in future research. To increase accuracy in capturing true changes in CSE we recommend assessing changes in CSE across a range of TMS test intensities.

[1]  Bidirectional variability in motor cortex excitability modulation following 1 mA transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy participants , 2016, Physiological reports.

[2]  B. Cheeran,et al.  Inter-individual Variability in Response to Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paradigms , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[3]  Kuniyoshi L. Sakai,et al.  Cortical hemoglobin-concentration changes under the coil induced by single-pulse TMS in humans: a simultaneous recording with near-infrared spectroscopy , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Shapour Jaberzadeh,et al.  A Higher Number of TMS-Elicited MEP from a Combined Hotspot Improves Intra- and Inter-Session Reliability of the Upper Limb Muscles in Healthy Individuals , 2012, PloS one.

[5]  S. Rossi,et al.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[6]  P. Rossini,et al.  Magnetic stimulation: motor evoked potentials. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[7]  T. Miles,et al.  Age and sex differences in human motor cortex input–output characteristics , 2003, The Journal of physiology.

[8]  Gary Kamen,et al.  Reliability of motor-evoked potentials during resting and active contraction conditions. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[9]  A. Russell,et al.  Measures to Predict The Individual Variability of Corticospinal Responses Following Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[10]  J. Mattingley,et al.  Stimulus uncertainty enhances long-term potentiation-like plasticity in human motor cortex , 2017, Cortex.

[11]  V. Nikulin,et al.  Pre-stimulus Alpha Oscillations and Inter-subject Variability of Motor Evoked Potentials in Single- and Paired-Pulse TMS Paradigms , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[12]  M. Malcolm,et al.  Reliability of motor cortex transcranial magnetic stimulation in four muscle representations , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  R. Robinson,et al.  Treatment of late-life depression: A role of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques , 2011, International review of psychiatry.

[14]  Alvaro Pascual-Leone,et al.  Recent advances in the treatment of chronic pain with non-invasive brain stimulation techniques , 2007, The Lancet Neurology.

[15]  S. Jaberzadeh,et al.  Cluster analysis and subgrouping to investigate inter-individual variability to non-invasive brain stimulation: a systematic review , 2018, Reviews in the neurosciences.

[16]  Shapour Jaberzadeh,et al.  Biological and anatomical factors influencing interindividual variability to noninvasive brain stimulation of the primary motor cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, Reviews in the neurosciences.

[17]  R. Lemon,et al.  State of the art: Physiology of transcranial motor cortex stimulation , 2008, Brain Stimulation.

[18]  Antonio Oliviero,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation effects on I-wave activity in humans. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans , 2016, Cerebellum & Ataxias.

[20]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation , 2000, The Journal of physiology.

[21]  P. Enticott,et al.  Assessing cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): A systematic review , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[22]  G. Millet,et al.  Resting and active motor thresholds versus stimulus–response curves to determine transcranial magnetic stimulation intensity in quadriceps femoris , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[23]  Mark Hallett,et al.  Placebo‐controlled study of rTMS for the treatment of Parkinson's disease , 2006, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[24]  E. Wassermann.  Variation in the response to transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in the general population , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[25]  Y. Z. Huang,et al.  Theta‐burst repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation suppresses specific excitatory circuits in the human motor cortex , 2005, The Journal of physiology.

[26]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Variability in neural excitability and plasticity induction in the human cortex: A brain stimulation study , 2017, Brain Stimulation.

[27]  S. Lisanby,et al.  Electric field depth–focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: Simulation comparison of 50 coil designs , 2013, Brain Stimulation.

[28]  P. Fitzgerald,et al.  Reliability of Motor Evoked Potentials Induced by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: The Effects of Initial Motor Evoked Potentials Removal , 2017, Basic and clinical neuroscience.

[29]  A. Barker,et al.  NON-INVASIVE MAGNETIC STIMULATION OF HUMAN MOTOR CORTEX , 1985, The Lancet.

[30]  K. Chiappa,et al.  Variability of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[31]  M. Ridding,et al.  Probing changes in corticospinal excitability following theta burst stimulation of the human primary motor cortex , 2016, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[32]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  Alkomiet Hasan,et al.  Efficacy and Interindividual Variability in Motor-Cortex Plasticity following Anodal tDCS and Paired-Associative Stimulation , 2015, Neural plasticity.

[34]  E. Wassermann,et al.  A safety screening questionnaire for transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[35]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  BDNF Polymorphism and Differential rTMS Effects on Motor Recovery of Stroke Patients , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[36]  G. Hammond,et al.  Excitatory and inhibitory processes in primary motor cortex during the foreperiod of a warned reaction time task are unrelated to response expectancy , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[37]  S. Jaberzadeh,et al.  Inter-pulse Interval Affects the Size of Single-pulse TMS-induced Motor Evoked Potentials: A Reliability Study , 2015, Basic and clinical neuroscience.

[38]  J. Rothwell,et al.  The physiological basis of the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex , 2008, The Journal of physiology.

[39]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Corticospinal activity evoked and modulated by non‐invasive stimulation of the intact human motor cortex , 2014, The Journal of physiology.

[40]  M. Ridding,et al.  Inter- and intra-subject variability of motor cortex plasticity following continuous theta-burst stimulation , 2015, Neuroscience.

[41]  J. Rothwell,et al.  The physiological basis of transcranial motor cortex stimulation in conscious humans , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[42]  Michael C. Ridding,et al.  Factors influencing the magnitude and reproducibility of corticomotor excitability changes induced by paired associative stimulation , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[43]  N Accornero,et al.  Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp , 1998, Neuroreport.

[44]  M. Hallett.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation: A useful tool for clinical neurophysiology , 1996, Annals of neurology.

[45]  Ryan T. Crews,et al.  Reliability of motor-evoked potentials in the ADM muscle of older adults , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[46]  Lucia M. Li,et al.  The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies , 2015, Front. Cell. Neurosci..

[47]  M. Ridding,et al.  Stimulus/response curves as a method of measuring motor cortical excitability in man. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[48]  U. Ziemann,et al.  A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report of an IFCN committee , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[49]  Christian Hyde,et al.  Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to the Right Cerebellar Hemisphere Affects Motor Adaptation During Gait , 2016, The Cerebellum.

[50]  A. Oliviero,et al.  I-wave origin and modulation , 2012, Brain Stimulation.

[51]  Alison J. Canty,et al.  Inter- and Intra-individual Variability Following Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation: Implications for Rehabilitation and Recovery , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[52]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[53]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Partially non‐linear stimulation intensity‐dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans , 2013, The Journal of physiology.

[54]  J C Rothwell,et al.  I-Waves in Motor Cortex , 2000, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[55]  Martin A. Lindquist,et al.  Response variability of different anodal transcranial direct current stimulation intensities across multiple sessions , 2017, Brain Stimulation.

[56]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[57]  S. Walter,et al.  Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[58]  J. Rothwell,et al.  The variability of intracortical inhibition and facilitation , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[59]  D. Downham,et al.  How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[60]  P M Rossini,et al.  Clinical applications of motor evoked potentials. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[61]  K L Gilmore,et al.  Using surface electromyography in physiotherapy research. , 1983, The Australian journal of physiotherapy.

[62]  Robert Chen,et al.  The clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report of an IFCN committee , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[63]  Christian Ethier,et al.  The comparable size and overlapping nature of upper limb distal and proximal muscle representations in the human motor cortex , 2006, The European journal of neuroscience.