Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation and Division of Cognitive Neurology, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Neuroscience and Motor Control Group (NEUROcom), Institute for Biomedical Research (INIBIC), Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation and Division of Cognitive Neurology, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Neuroscience. 2018 Nov 21;393:97-109. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.09.044. Epub 2018 Oct 6.
The pulse waveform and current direction of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) influence its interactions with the neural substrate; however, their role in the efficacy and reliability of single- and paired-pulse TMS measures is not fully understood. We investigated how pulse waveform and current direction affect the efficacy and test-retest reliability of navigated, single- and paired-pulse TMS measures. 23 healthy adults (aged 18-35 years) completed two identical TMS sessions, assessing resting motor threshold (RMT), motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), cortical silent period (cSP), short- and long-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI and LICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) using either monophasic posterior-anterior (mono; n = 9), monophasic anterior-posterior (mono; n = 7), or biphasic (bi; n = 7) pulses. Averages of each TMS measure were compared across the three groups and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess test-retest reliability. RMT was the lowest and cSP was the longest with bi pulses, whereas MEP latency was the shortest with mono pulses. SICI and LICI had the largest effect with mono pulses, whereas only mono and bi pulses resulted in significant ICF. MEP amplitude was more reliable with either mono or mono than with bi pulses. LICI was the most reliable with mono pulses, whereas ICF was the most reliable with bi pulses. Waveform/current direction influenced RMT, MEP latency, cSP, SICI, LICI, and ICF, as well as the reliability of MEP amplitude, LICI, and ICF. These results show the importance of considering TMS pulse parameters for optimizing the efficacy and reliability of TMS neurophysiologic measures.
经颅磁刺激(TMS)的脉冲波形和电流方向影响其与神经基质的相互作用;然而,它们在单脉冲和双脉冲 TMS 测量的有效性和可靠性中的作用尚未完全了解。我们研究了脉冲波形和电流方向如何影响导航、单脉冲和双脉冲 TMS 测量的有效性和测试-重测可靠性。23 名健康成年人(年龄 18-35 岁)完成了两次完全相同的 TMS 会话,评估静息运动阈值(RMT)、运动诱发电位(MEP)、皮质静息期(cSP)、短程和长程皮质内抑制(SICI 和 LICI)以及皮质内易化(ICF),使用单相后前(单相;n=9)、单相前后(单相;n=7)或双相(双相;n=7)脉冲。比较了三组之间的每个 TMS 测量的平均值,并计算了组内相关系数以评估测试-重测可靠性。双相脉冲时 RMT 最低,cSP 最长,而单相脉冲时 MEP 潜伏期最短。SICI 和 LICI 单相脉冲的效果最大,而只有单相和双相脉冲导致 ICF 显著增加。MEP 幅度用单相或单相比双相脉冲更可靠。单相脉冲时 LICI 最可靠,而双相脉冲时 ICF 最可靠。波形/电流方向影响 RMT、MEP 潜伏期、cSP、SICI、LICI 和 ICF,以及 MEP 幅度、LICI 和 ICF 的可靠性。这些结果表明,在优化 TMS 神经生理测量的有效性和可靠性时,考虑 TMS 脉冲参数非常重要。