Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study determined the reliability of topographic motor cortical maps and MEP characteristics in the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) evoked by single-pulse TMS among patients with chronic stroke.</p> <p>Methods</p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kahn Shannon, Wolf Steven L, Butler Andrew J, Weiss Paul
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2005-05-01
Series:Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/2/1/10
_version_ 1828419344915234816
author Kahn Shannon
Wolf Steven L
Butler Andrew J
Weiss Paul
author_facet Kahn Shannon
Wolf Steven L
Butler Andrew J
Weiss Paul
author_sort Kahn Shannon
collection DOAJ
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study determined the reliability of topographic motor cortical maps and MEP characteristics in the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) evoked by single-pulse TMS among patients with chronic stroke.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Each of ten patients was studied on three occasions. Measures included location of the EDC hotspot and center of gravity (COG), threshold of activation and average amplitude of the hotspot, number of active sites, map volume, and recruitment curve (RC) slope.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Consistent intrahemispheric measurements were obtained for the three TMS mapping sessions for all measured variables. No statistically significant difference was observed between hemispheres for the number of active sites, COG distance or the RC slope. The magnitude and range of COG movement between sessions were similar to those reported previously with this muscle in able-bodied individuals. The average COG movement over three sessions in both hemispheres was 0.90 cm. The average COG movement in the affected hemisphere was 1.13 (± 0.08) cm, and 0.68 (± 0.04) cm) for the less affected hemisphere. However, significant interhemispheric variability was seen for the average MEP amplitude, normalized map volume, and resting motor threshold.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The physiologic variability in some TMS measurements of EDC suggest that interpretation of TMS mapping data derived from hemiparetic patients in the chronic stage following stroke should be undertaken cautiously. Irrespective of the muscle, potential causes of variability should be resolved to accurately assess the impact of pharmacological or physical interventions on cortical organization as measured by TMS among patients with stroke.</p>
first_indexed 2024-12-10T14:51:39Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c0d1b1b7f0d84b9e838d8da55ad436b1
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1743-0003
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T14:51:39Z
publishDate 2005-05-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
spelling doaj.art-c0d1b1b7f0d84b9e838d8da55ad436b12022-12-22T01:44:26ZengBMCJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation1743-00032005-05-01211010.1186/1743-0003-2-10Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patientsKahn ShannonWolf Steven LButler Andrew JWeiss Paul<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study determined the reliability of topographic motor cortical maps and MEP characteristics in the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) evoked by single-pulse TMS among patients with chronic stroke.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Each of ten patients was studied on three occasions. Measures included location of the EDC hotspot and center of gravity (COG), threshold of activation and average amplitude of the hotspot, number of active sites, map volume, and recruitment curve (RC) slope.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Consistent intrahemispheric measurements were obtained for the three TMS mapping sessions for all measured variables. No statistically significant difference was observed between hemispheres for the number of active sites, COG distance or the RC slope. The magnitude and range of COG movement between sessions were similar to those reported previously with this muscle in able-bodied individuals. The average COG movement over three sessions in both hemispheres was 0.90 cm. The average COG movement in the affected hemisphere was 1.13 (± 0.08) cm, and 0.68 (± 0.04) cm) for the less affected hemisphere. However, significant interhemispheric variability was seen for the average MEP amplitude, normalized map volume, and resting motor threshold.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The physiologic variability in some TMS measurements of EDC suggest that interpretation of TMS mapping data derived from hemiparetic patients in the chronic stage following stroke should be undertaken cautiously. Irrespective of the muscle, potential causes of variability should be resolved to accurately assess the impact of pharmacological or physical interventions on cortical organization as measured by TMS among patients with stroke.</p>http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/2/1/10motor mappingreliabilitycenter of gravityupper limbplasticityrehabilitationcortex
spellingShingle Kahn Shannon
Wolf Steven L
Butler Andrew J
Weiss Paul
Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
motor mapping
reliability
center of gravity
upper limb
plasticity
rehabilitation
cortex
title Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients
title_full Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients
title_fullStr Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients
title_full_unstemmed Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients
title_short Finger extensor variability in TMS parameters among chronic stroke patients
title_sort finger extensor variability in tms parameters among chronic stroke patients
topic motor mapping
reliability
center of gravity
upper limb
plasticity
rehabilitation
cortex
url http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/2/1/10
work_keys_str_mv AT kahnshannon fingerextensorvariabilityintmsparametersamongchronicstrokepatients
AT wolfstevenl fingerextensorvariabilityintmsparametersamongchronicstrokepatients
AT butlerandrewj fingerextensorvariabilityintmsparametersamongchronicstrokepatients
AT weisspaul fingerextensorvariabilityintmsparametersamongchronicstrokepatients