Inducing ipsilateral motor‐evoked potentials in the biceps brachii muscle in healthy humans.
Saved in:
| Title: | Inducing ipsilateral motor‐evoked potentials in the biceps brachii muscle in healthy humans. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Hu, Nijia (AUTHOR), Tanel, Meghan (AUTHOR), Baker, Stuart N. (AUTHOR), Kidgell, Dawson J. (AUTHOR), Walker, Simon (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | European Journal of Neuroscience. Nov2024, Vol. 60 Issue 9, p6291-6299. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Transcranial magnetic stimulation, Action potentials, Intraclass correlation, Young adults, Strength training |
| Abstract: | To assess reticulospinal tract excitability, high‐intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been used to elicit ipsilateral motor‐evoked potentials (iMEPs). However, there is no consensus on robust and valid methods for use in human studies. The present study proposes a standardized method for eliciting and analysing iMEPs in the biceps brachii. Twenty‐four healthy young adults participated in this study. Electromyography (EMG) electrodes recorded contralateral MEPs (cMEPs) from the right and iMEPs from the left biceps brachii. A dynamic preacher curl task was used with ~15% of the subject's one‐repetition maximum load. The protocol included maximal compound action potential (M‐max) determination of the right biceps brachii muscle, TMS hotspot determination, and four sets of five repetitions where 100% stimulator output was delivered at an elbow angle of 110° of flexion. We normalized cMEP amplitude by M‐max (% M‐max) and iMEP by cMEP amplitude ratio (ICAR). Clear iMEPs above background EMG were observed in 21 subjects (88%, ICAR =.31 ±.19). Good‐to‐excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] =.795–1.000) and low bias (.01–.08 mV and.60–1.11 ms) were demonstrated when comparing two different analysis methods (i.e. fixed time‐window vs. manual onset detection) to determine the cMEP and iMEP amplitude and latency, respectively. Most subjects demonstrated clear iMEPs above background EMG triggered at a pre‐determined joint angle during a light‐load dynamic preacher curl exercise. Similar results were obtained when comparing a single‐trial manual identification of iMEP and a semi‐automated time‐window data analysis approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of European Journal of Neuroscience is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | To assess reticulospinal tract excitability, high‐intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been used to elicit ipsilateral motor‐evoked potentials (iMEPs). However, there is no consensus on robust and valid methods for use in human studies. The present study proposes a standardized method for eliciting and analysing iMEPs in the biceps brachii. Twenty‐four healthy young adults participated in this study. Electromyography (EMG) electrodes recorded contralateral MEPs (cMEPs) from the right and iMEPs from the left biceps brachii. A dynamic preacher curl task was used with ~15% of the subject's one‐repetition maximum load. The protocol included maximal compound action potential (M‐max) determination of the right biceps brachii muscle, TMS hotspot determination, and four sets of five repetitions where 100% stimulator output was delivered at an elbow angle of 110° of flexion. We normalized cMEP amplitude by M‐max (% M‐max) and iMEP by cMEP amplitude ratio (ICAR). Clear iMEPs above background EMG were observed in 21 subjects (88%, ICAR =.31 ±.19). Good‐to‐excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] =.795–1.000) and low bias (.01–.08 mV and.60–1.11 ms) were demonstrated when comparing two different analysis methods (i.e. fixed time‐window vs. manual onset detection) to determine the cMEP and iMEP amplitude and latency, respectively. Most subjects demonstrated clear iMEPs above background EMG triggered at a pre‐determined joint angle during a light‐load dynamic preacher curl exercise. Similar results were obtained when comparing a single‐trial manual identification of iMEP and a semi‐automated time‐window data analysis approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0953816X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ejn.16548 |
