TMS motor mapping: Comparing the absolute reliability of digital reconstruction methods to the golden standard

Zeb D. Jonker; Rick van der Vliet; Christopher M. Hauwert; Carolin Gaiser; Joke H. M. Tulen; Jos N. van der Geest; Opher Donchin; Gerard M. Ribbers; Maarten A. Frens; Ruud W. Selles

doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.005

TMS motor mapping: Comparing the absolute reliability of digital reconstruction methods to the golden standard

Zeb D. Jonker^*, Rick van der Vliet, Christopher M. Hauwert, Carolin Gaiser, Joke H. M. Tulen, Jos N. van der Geest, Opher Donchin, Gerard M. Ribbers, Maarten A. Frens, Ruud W. Selles

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)

11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation motor map parameters can be used to quantify plasticity in the human motor cortex. The golden standard uses a counting analysis of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) acquired with a predefined grid. Recently, digital reconstruction methods have been proposed, allowing MEPs to be acquired with a faster pseudorandom procedure. However, the reliability of these reconstruction methods has never been compared to the golden standard.Objective: To compare the absolute reliability of the reconstruction methods with the golden standard.Methods: In 21 healthy subjects, both grid and pseudorandom acquisition were performed twice on the first day and once on the second day. The standard error of measurement was calculated for the counting analysis and the digital reconstructions.Results: The standard error of measurement was at least equal using digital reconstructions.Conclusion: Pseudorandom acquisition and digital reconstruction can be used in intervention studies without sacrificing reliability. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	309-313
Number of pages	5
Journal	Brain Stimulation
Volume	12
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.005
Publication status	Published - Mar 2019

Research programs

EMC ONWAR-01-58-02

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.005Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

1-s2.0-S1935861X18303711-mainFinal published version, 1.33 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

http://hdl.handle.net/1765/112581

Cite this

@article{9ffd34cd38834067923fa0c526e535b5,

title = "TMS motor mapping: Comparing the absolute reliability of digital reconstruction methods to the golden standard",

abstract = "Background: Changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation motor map parameters can be used to quantify plasticity in the human motor cortex. The golden standard uses a counting analysis of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) acquired with a predefined grid. Recently, digital reconstruction methods have been proposed, allowing MEPs to be acquired with a faster pseudorandom procedure. However, the reliability of these reconstruction methods has never been compared to the golden standard.Objective: To compare the absolute reliability of the reconstruction methods with the golden standard.Methods: In 21 healthy subjects, both grid and pseudorandom acquisition were performed twice on the first day and once on the second day. The standard error of measurement was calculated for the counting analysis and the digital reconstructions.Results: The standard error of measurement was at least equal using digital reconstructions.Conclusion: Pseudorandom acquisition and digital reconstruction can be used in intervention studies without sacrificing reliability. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.",

author = "Jonker, {Zeb D.} and {van der Vliet}, Rick and Hauwert, {Christopher M.} and Carolin Gaiser and Tulen, {Joke H. M.} and {van der Geest}, {Jos N.} and Opher Donchin and Ribbers, {Gerard M.} and Frens, {Maarten A.} and Selles, {Ruud W.}",

year = "2019",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.005",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

pages = "309--313",

journal = "Brain Stimulation",

issn = "1935-861X",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TMS motor mapping

T2 - Comparing the absolute reliability of digital reconstruction methods to the golden standard

AU - Jonker, Zeb D.

AU - van der Vliet, Rick

AU - Hauwert, Christopher M.

AU - Gaiser, Carolin

AU - Tulen, Joke H. M.

AU - van der Geest, Jos N.

AU - Donchin, Opher

AU - Ribbers, Gerard M.

AU - Frens, Maarten A.

AU - Selles, Ruud W.

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Background: Changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation motor map parameters can be used to quantify plasticity in the human motor cortex. The golden standard uses a counting analysis of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) acquired with a predefined grid. Recently, digital reconstruction methods have been proposed, allowing MEPs to be acquired with a faster pseudorandom procedure. However, the reliability of these reconstruction methods has never been compared to the golden standard.Objective: To compare the absolute reliability of the reconstruction methods with the golden standard.Methods: In 21 healthy subjects, both grid and pseudorandom acquisition were performed twice on the first day and once on the second day. The standard error of measurement was calculated for the counting analysis and the digital reconstructions.Results: The standard error of measurement was at least equal using digital reconstructions.Conclusion: Pseudorandom acquisition and digital reconstruction can be used in intervention studies without sacrificing reliability. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

AB - Background: Changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation motor map parameters can be used to quantify plasticity in the human motor cortex. The golden standard uses a counting analysis of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) acquired with a predefined grid. Recently, digital reconstruction methods have been proposed, allowing MEPs to be acquired with a faster pseudorandom procedure. However, the reliability of these reconstruction methods has never been compared to the golden standard.Objective: To compare the absolute reliability of the reconstruction methods with the golden standard.Methods: In 21 healthy subjects, both grid and pseudorandom acquisition were performed twice on the first day and once on the second day. The standard error of measurement was calculated for the counting analysis and the digital reconstructions.Results: The standard error of measurement was at least equal using digital reconstructions.Conclusion: Pseudorandom acquisition and digital reconstruction can be used in intervention studies without sacrificing reliability. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=eur_pure&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:000456437000012&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS

U2 - 10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.005

DO - 10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 30497885

SN - 1935-861X

VL - 12

SP - 309

EP - 313

JO - Brain Stimulation

JF - Brain Stimulation

IS - 2

ER -

TMS motor mapping: Comparing the absolute reliability of digital reconstruction methods to the golden standard

Abstract

Research programs

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this