A model of variability in brain stimulation evoked responses

Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 6434-6437

  Goetz, Stefan M ^a,b   Peterchev, Angel V ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN STIMULATION; CORTICAL NEURONS; CURVE PARAMETERS; DATA SETS; EVOKED RESPONSE; GAUSSIAN SCATTERING; INPUT-OUTPUT; INTRINSIC VARIABILITIES; MATHEMATICAL METHOD; MODELING APPROACH; MODELING FRAMEWORKS; NEURAL POPULATIONS; NEUROSTIMULATION; NON-LINEAR MODEL; REGRESSION MODELING; RESPONSE MEASURES; SIGMOIDAL SHAPE; STOCHASTIC BEHAVIOR; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION;

ENGINEERING; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING;

FUNCTIONAL ELECTRIC STIMULATION;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BRAIN; PHYSIOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION;

ALGORITHMS; BRAIN; MODELS, THEORETICAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION;

EID: 84870788387     PISSN: 1557170X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347467     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. J.B. Pitcher, K.M. Ogston, and T.S. Miles. Age and sex differences in human motor cortex input-output characteristics. Journal of Physiology, vol. 546, no. 2, pp. 605-613, 2003.
2. C. Möller, N. Arai, J. Lücke, and U. Ziemann. Hysteresis effects on the input-output curve of motor evoked potentials. Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 120, pp. 1003-1008, 2009.
3. A.A. van Kuijk, L.C. Anker, J.W. Pasman, J.C.M. Hendriks, G. van Elswijk, A.C.H. Geurts. Stimulus-response characteristics of motor evoked potentials and silent periods in proximal and distal upper-extremity muscles. Hournal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, vol. 19, pp. 574-583, 2009.
4. E. Hoyader, A. Degardin, F. Cassim, P. Bocquillon, P. Derambure, and H. Devanne. The effects of low- and high-frequency repetitive TMS on the input/output properties of the human corticospinal pathway. Experimental Brain Research, vol. 187, pp. 207-217, 2008.
5. E.M. Wassermann. Variation in the response to transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in the general population. Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 113, pp. 1165-1171, 2002.
6. B. Boroojerdi, F. Battaglia, W. Muehlbacher, and L.G. Cohen. Mechanisms influencing stimulus-response properties of the human corti-cospinal system. Clinical Neurophysiology. vol. 112, pp. 931-937, 2001.
7. L. Niehaus, B.-U. Meyer, T. Weyh. Influence of pulse configuration and direction of coil current on excitatory effects of magnetic motor cortex and nerve stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 75-80, 2000.
8. H. Devanne, B.A. Lavoie, and C. Capaday. Input-output properties and gain changes in the human corticospinal pathway. Experimental Brain Research, vol. 114, pp. 329-338, 1997.
9. M.C. Ridding, J.C. Rothwell. Stimulus/response curves as a method of measuring motor cortical excitability in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 105, pp. 340-344, 1997.
10. P.M. Rossini et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN committee. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 91, pp. 79-92, 1994.
11. S. Rossi, et al. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 120, no. 12, pp. 2008-2039, 2009.
12. P. Pasqualetti, F. Ferreri. Amplitude values of motor evoked potentials: statistical properties and neurophysiological implications. Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement, vol. 122, S44-S45, 2011.
13. K.R. Choudhury, L. Boyle, M. Burke, W. Lombard, S. Ryan, B. McNamara. Intra subject variation and correlation of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Irish Journal of Medical Science, vol. 180, no. 4, pp. 873-880, 2011.
14. N.H. Jung, I. Delvendahl, N.G. Kuhnke, D. Hauschke, S. Stolle, and V. Mall. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation does not decrease the variability of motor-evoked potentials. Brain Stimulation, vol. 3, pp. 87-94, 2010.
15. K.M. Rösler, D.M. Roth, and M.R. Magistris. Trial-to-trial size variability of motor-evoke potentials. A study using the triple stimulation technique. Experimental Brain Research, vol. 187, pp. 51-59, 2008.
16. D. Burke, R. Hicks, J. Stephen, I. Woodforth, and M. Crawford. Trial-to-trial variability of corticospinal volleys in human subjects. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 97, pp. 231-237, 1995.
17. L. Kiers, D. Cros, K.H. Chiappa, and J. Fang. Variability of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroen-cephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 89, pp. 415-423, 1993.
18. R.J.W. Dunneworld, W. van der Kamp, A.M. van den Brink, M.S. Reegt, and G. van Dijk. Influence of electrode site and size on variability of magnetic evoked potentials. Muscle & Nerve, vol. 21, no. 12, 1779-1782.
19. J.F. Nielsen. Logarithmic distribution of amplitudes of compound muscle action potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 423-434.
20. L.A. Stefanski. Measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 95, no. 452, pp. 1353-1358.
21. R.A. Fisher. On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, vol. 222, pp. 309-368, 1922.
22. A.V. Peterchev, G.G. Westin, B. Luber, and S.H. Lisanby. Corticospinal response characterization with controllable pulse parameter transcranial magnetic stimulation (cTMS). Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement, vol. 122, pp. S191, 2011.
23. J.A. Nelder, R. Mead. A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 308-313, 1965.