Estimation of the resting motor threshold (RMT) in transcranial magnetic stimulation using relative-frequency and threshold-hunting methods in brain tumor patients.
Adult
Aged
Algorithms
Brain Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Evoked Potentials, Motor
Female
Humans
Likelihood Functions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Motor Cortex
/ diagnostic imaging
Movement
Neuronavigation
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
/ methods
Young Adult
Adaptive threshold-hunting
Maximum likelihood algorithm
Resting motor threshold (RMT)
Rossini-Rothwell method
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
18
05
2019
accepted:
25
06
2019
pubmed:
10
7
2019
medline:
27
5
2020
entrez:
10
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Application of transcranial magnetic stimulation is often based on the resting motor threshold. The aim of this study was to validate recent findings on the advantage of resting motor threshold estimation using adaptive threshold-hunting algorithms over the Rossini-Rothwell method in a clinical sample and healthy subjects. Resting motor thresholds in 115 patients with a brain tumor and 10 healthy subjects were assessed using the Rossini-Rothwell method and compared to an adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm. In healthy subjects, this measurement was repeated twice to capture test-retest reliability of both methods. Efficiency of both methods was assessed by comparing the number of pulses needed for resting motor threshold estimation. There was no significant difference between the Rossini-Rothwell method and the adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm in patients and healthy controls with limits of agreement between ± 12 V/m. There was a strong intraclass correlation and both methods showed a good test-retest reliability. However, the adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm was significantly faster. The adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm was more efficient in assessing the resting motor threshold, while reaching comparable results as the Rossini-Rothwell method. Thus, our results support the advantage of adaptive threshold-hunting algorithms to determine the resting motor threshold also in a clinical sample.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Application of transcranial magnetic stimulation is often based on the resting motor threshold. The aim of this study was to validate recent findings on the advantage of resting motor threshold estimation using adaptive threshold-hunting algorithms over the Rossini-Rothwell method in a clinical sample and healthy subjects.
METHODS
Resting motor thresholds in 115 patients with a brain tumor and 10 healthy subjects were assessed using the Rossini-Rothwell method and compared to an adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm. In healthy subjects, this measurement was repeated twice to capture test-retest reliability of both methods. Efficiency of both methods was assessed by comparing the number of pulses needed for resting motor threshold estimation.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference between the Rossini-Rothwell method and the adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm in patients and healthy controls with limits of agreement between ± 12 V/m. There was a strong intraclass correlation and both methods showed a good test-retest reliability. However, the adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm was significantly faster.
CONCLUSIONS
The adaptive threshold-hunting algorithm was more efficient in assessing the resting motor threshold, while reaching comparable results as the Rossini-Rothwell method. Thus, our results support the advantage of adaptive threshold-hunting algorithms to determine the resting motor threshold also in a clinical sample.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31286238
doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-03997-z
pii: 10.1007/s00701-019-03997-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1845-1851Références
Ah Sen CB, Fassett HJ, El-Sayes J, Turco CV, Hameer MM, Nelson AJ (2017) Active and resting motor threshold are efficiently obtained with adaptive threshold hunting. PLoS One 12(10):1–9
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186007
Awiszus F (2003) TMS and threshold hunting. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol 56:13–23
doi: 10.1016/S1567-424X(09)70205-3
pubmed: 14677378
Awiszus F (2011) Fast estimation of transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold: is it safe? Brain Stimul 4(1):50–57
doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2010.09.004
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310
Engelhardt M, Picht T (2019) 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex: impact on excitability and task performance in healthy subjects. J Neurol Surg Part A. In Press
Groppa S, Oliviero A, Eisen A, et al (2012) A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol 123(5):858–882
Kumpala H (2009) Comparing three motor threshold estimation methods using simulation and navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/adc6/a262dab04c2cb6a20414f47531e5e445dac4.pdf . Accessed 9 May 2019
Möller C, Arai N, Lücke J, Ziemann U (2009) Clinical neurophysiology hysteresis effects on the input – output curve of motor evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 120(5):1003–1008
Picht T, Schmidt S, Brandt S, Frey D, Hannula H, Neuvonen T, Karhu J, Vajkoczy P, Suess O (2011) Preoperative functional mapping for rolandic brain tumor surgery: comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation to direct cortical stimulation. Neurosurgery 69(3):581–589
Picht T, Strack V, Schulz J, Zdunczyk A, Frey D, Schmidt S, Vajkoczy P (2012) Assessing the functional status of the motor system in brain tumor patients using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Acta Neurochir 154(11):2075–2081
Rosenstock T, Kulchytska N, Grittner U, Vajkoczy P, Picht T, Acker G, Schwarzer V (2017) Risk stratification in motor area–related glioma surgery based on navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation data. J Neurosurg 126(April):1227–1237
Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A (2009) Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 120(12):2008–2039
Rossini P, Barker A, Berardelli A (1994) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 91:79–92
Rothwell JC, Hallett M, Berardelli A, Eisen A, Rossini P, Paulus W (1999) Magnetic stimulation: motor evoked potentials. The international federation of clinical neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 52:97–103
Ruohonen J, Ilmoniemi RJ (1999) Modeling of the stimulating field generation in TMS. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 51:30–40
Silbert BI, Patterson HI, Pevcic DD, Windnagel KA, Thickbroom GW (2013) A comparison of relative-frequency and threshold-hunting methods to determine stimulus intensity in transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 124(4):708–712
Sollmann N, Bulubas L, Tanigawa N, Zimmer C, Meyer B, Krieg SM (2017) The variability of motor evoked potential latencies in neurosurgical motor mapping by preoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. BMC Neurosci 18(1):1–15
Sollmann N, Tanigawa N, Bulubas L, Sabih J, Zimmer C, Ringel F, Meyer B, Krieg SM (2017) Clinical factors underlying the inter-individual variability of the resting motor threshold in navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping. Brain Topogr 30(1):98–121
Tranulis C, Guéguen B, Pham-Scottez A, Vacheron MN, Cabelguen G, Costantini A, Valero G, Galinovski A (2006) Motor threshold in transcranial magnetic stimulation: comparison of three estimation methods. Neurophysiol Clin 36(1):1–7
Wassermann EM (2002) Variation in the response to transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in the general population. Clin Neurophysiol 113:1165–1171