Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/11153
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBadawy, Radwa A Ben
dc.contributor.authorTarletti, Robertoen
dc.contributor.authorMula, Marcoen
dc.contributor.authorVarrasi, Claudiaen
dc.contributor.authorCantello, Robertoen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-16T00:44:26Z
dc.date.available2015-05-16T00:44:26Z
dc.date.issued2010-11-10en
dc.identifier.citationClinical Neurophysiology : Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 2010; 122(4): 784-8en
dc.identifier.govdoc21071268en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttp://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/11153en
dc.description.abstractMotor cortex excitability can be measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) using different coil types, but paired-TMS was originally devised with a figure-of-eight coil. We asked whether the most popular, circular coil was suited to the every-day assessment of cortical excitability, particularly paired-TMS indexes, and if it reduced the measurement error.We studied 12 right-handed, healthy subjects (34±7.6 years). Resting motor threshold (MT), cortical silent period (CSP), short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) at the 2, 3, 4 and 5 ms interstimulus intervals (ISIs) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) at the 14 and 16 ms ISIs were measured. Intrinsic variability of these indexes was evaluated in terms of Coefficients of Variation, to estimate the measurement error. This sequence was carried out both using a figure-of-eight coil over the hand motor area and a circular coil centred at the vertex. Testing was repeated 8-13 months later.On average, MT, SICI and ICF did not show any statistically significant difference (p>0.05) when studied with the figure-of-eight as compared with the circular coil. CSP was significantly shorter (p=0.007) with the figure-of-eight coil. Using either coil did not affect measurement variability. There was no significant session-to-session group difference at any of the variables using either coil type.Except for the CSP duration, the TMS testing and retesting of cortical excitability, particularly the paired-pulse indexes, did not vary significantly as a function of the coil used.Routine circular coils can be used reliably in paired-TMS studies designed to measure longitudinal changes in cortical excitability though they do not reduce the measurement error.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherAdulten
dc.subject.otherData Interpretation, Statisticalen
dc.subject.otherElectromyographyen
dc.subject.otherElectronicsen
dc.subject.otherEquipment Designen
dc.subject.otherEvoked Potentials, Motor.physiologyen
dc.subject.otherFemaleen
dc.subject.otherHand.innervationen
dc.subject.otherHumansen
dc.subject.otherMaleen
dc.subject.otherMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.otherMotor Cortex.physiologyen
dc.subject.otherNeural Pathways.physiologyen
dc.subject.otherReproducibility of Resultsen
dc.subject.otherTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation.instrumentationen
dc.titleThe routine circular coil is reliable in paired-TMS studies.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Neurology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinph.2010.10.027en
dc.description.pages784-8en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21071268en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

6
checked on Feb 3, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.