...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical neurophysiology >Impact of coil position and electrophysiological monitoring on determination of motor thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation.
【24h】

Impact of coil position and electrophysiological monitoring on determination of motor thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation.

机译:线圈位置和电生理监测对经颅磁刺激的运动阈值确定的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: We compared motor and movement thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in healthy subjects and investigated the effect of different coil positions on thresholds and MEP (motor-evoked potential) amplitudes. METHODS: The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) 'hot spot' and a standard scalp position were stimulated. APB resting motor threshold (APB MEP-MT) defined by the '5/10' electrophysiological method was compared with movement threshold (MOV-MT), defined by visualization of movements. Additionally, APB MEP-MTs were evaluated with the '3/6 method,' and MEPs were recorded at a stimulation intensity of 120% APB MEP-MT at each position. RESULTS: APB MEP-MTs were significantly lower by stimulation of the 'hot spot' than of the standard position, and significantly lower than MOV-MTs (n=15). There were no significant differences between the '3/6' and the '5/10' methods, or between APB MEP amplitudes by stimulating each position at 120% APB MEP-MT. CONCLUSIONS: Coil position and electrophysiological monitoring influenced motor threshold determinations. Performing 6 instead of 10 trials did not produce different threshold measurements. Adjustment of intensity according to APB MEP-MT at the stimulated position did not influence APB MEP amplitudes. SIGNIFICANCE: Standardization of stimulation positions, nomenclature and criteria for threshold measurements should be considered in design and comparison of TMS protocols.
机译:目的:我们比较了健康受试者的运动和运动阈值与经颅磁刺激(TMS),并研究了不同线圈位置对阈值和MEP(运动诱发电位)幅度的影响。方法:刺激外展短缩外阴(APB)的“热点”和标准头皮位置。将“ 5/10”电生理学方法定义的APB静息运动阈值(APB MEP-MT)与通过运动可视化定义的运动阈值(MOV-MT)进行比较。另外,用“ 3/6方法”评估了APB MEP-MT,并且在每个位置以120%APB MEP-MT的刺激强度记录了MEP。结果:通过“热点”刺激,APB MEP-MT显着低于标准位置,并且显着低于MOV-MT(n = 15)。在“ 3/6”和“ 5/10”方法之间,或通过在120%APB MEP-MT处刺激每个位置,APB MEP振幅之间均无显着差异。结论:线圈位置和电生理监测影响了运动阈值的确定。进行6次而不是10次试验不会产生不同的阈值测量值。根据APB MEP-MT在受激位置的强度调整不影响APB MEP振幅。意义:在TMS方案的设计和比较中,应考虑刺激位置,命名和阈值测量标准的标准化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号