Elsevier

Neuroscience Letters

Volume 674, 1 May 2018, Pages 94-100
Neuroscience Letters

Research article
The minimal number of TMS trials required for the reliable assessment of corticospinal excitability, short interval intracortical inhibition, and intracortical facilitation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2018.03.026Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Averaging less than 20 consecutive TMS-evoked MEPs gives highly variable results.

  • More than 25 paired-pulse stimuli are required for highly reliable SICI estimates.

  • After 30 successive pulses, ICF measures stabilize with low inter-session reliability.

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are frequently used to assess corticospinal and intercortical activities. Trial to trial variance of the potentials is commonly observed, and averages of multiple MEPs are usually reported. Multiple trials have resources implications and are not compatible with some experimental protocols. This study investigated the minimum number of MEPs required to reliably assess corticospinal excitability (CSE), short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intercortical facilitation (ICF), within and between sessions. Fifteen healthy volunteers received 35 single-pulse TMS for CSE assessments and 35 paired-pulse TMS for SICI and ICF measurements. Intra- and intersession reliability were examined using intra-class correlation coefficient tests, and stability of the measures was assessed using a general equation estimation analysis. Coefficients of variation were used to probe the effects of inter-individual variability on reliability results. All analyses were carried out on cumulative averages. The optimal number of trials to ensure “excellent” intra and inter-session reliability with low inter-individual variability and the highest level of stability was found to be 20 for CSE and 26 for SICI assessments. Although 30 consecutive trials produced highly reliable ICF measures within a session, inter-session reliability was not significant across 35 trials. These findings have significant implications for improving time efficiency of TMS experiments without compromising intra- or intersession reliability.

Introduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of primary motor cortex (M1) is a non-invasive technique frequently used to study the human motor system [31]. A supra-threshold single-pulse TMS (spTMS) over M1 elicits a motor-evoked potential (MEP) in the corresponding peripheral muscle providing information about the excitability of the motor cortex and its descending projections, referred to as corticospinal excitability (CSE) [1]. In paired-pulse TMS (ppTMS) the supra-threshold stimulus (test) is preceded by a subthreshold pulse (conditioning), which inhibits MEPs amplitude at inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) of 1–6 ms and facilitates them at ISIs of 8–30 ms [22,36]. These paradigms, known as short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intra-cortical facilitation (ICF), give information about inhibitory and facilitatory intracortical processes [22,36].

Today, findings from TMS assessments are expanding our understanding of the pathophysiology of neurological disorders and the effects of therapeutic interventions. However, questions persist about the variability of the measures, and definitive strategies to address this confounding variance are yet to be established. Recent studies suggest that MEP-related parameters are highly variable within and between individuals; and different stimulation paradigms (i.e. spTMS and ppTMS) have shown different levels of reproducibility [4,10,17,30]. The inconsistency observed in TMS outcomes have been attributed to numerous technical and physiological factors such as coil positioning methods [10,18], stimulus intensity [30], inter pulse intervals [25], and the background neural activity [28]. To minimize variability, a generally accepted method is to elicit a number of MEPs and use their average for analysis purposes [9,15,37]. However, due to various technical and physiological limitations, such as inducing plastic changes with higher numbers of stimuli [7], eliciting numerous MEPs is not always feasible. In addition, recent studies have shown that estimates of MEP values tend to plateau with averaging, suggesting that redundant stimuli could be avoided by determining the optimal number for stable averages [9,15].

The only study that has systematically investigated the effect of the number of trials on MEP measures suggested 30 as the optimal number of stimuli needed to achieve a reliable and stable level of MEPs [15]. This finding has significant implications for the specific spTMS protocol employed in that study, but cannot be generalized to other frequently used single pulse or to paired pulse protocols. In addition, the high variability of MEP measures between individuals [24] can affect the results of reliability tests and lead to misinterpretation of findings [2]. Hence, defining the level of inter-individual variability permits more reasonable interpretation of the results [9,15]. In addition, SICI and ICF measures have been found to be even more variable and less reliable than spTMS outcomes, limiting their ability to detect neurophysiological changes in repeated measure designs [30]. Various studies have been conducted to optimize the reliability of ppTMS protocols by altering stimulation parameters including intensity and frequency [4,10,13,17], but the effect of the number of pulses remains unclear. This study was conducted to define the minimum number of trials to obtain reliable and stable measures of CSE using spTMS, and SICI and ICF using ppTMS, within and between sessions. Also, the inter-individual variability was investigated, in order to facilitate interpretation of reliability results.

Section snippets

Participants

Fifteen healthy volunteers (8 females, 7 males), between 18 and 30 years (mean ± standard deviation (SD) = 21.5 ± 3.1) were recruited for this study. All participants were right-handed based on the 10-item version of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [29] (mean ± SD laterality index = 81% ± 18%) and were safe to receive TMS according to their responses to the Adult Safety Screening Questionnaire [21]. Prior to the experiments, all participants provided informed consent to participate in the

RMT

The mean ± SD for RMTs were 31.8 ± 4.7%, 31.5 ± 5.6 and 32.1 ± 6.3% of maximal stimulator output for three sessions, respectively. Both intra- and intersession reliability analyses disclosed significant correlations for these measures (r = 0.93, and r = 0.89, respectively). The intra- and inter-session CV were 2.6% and 3.0%, respectively.

Single-pulse paradigm

The mean ± SD of CSE estimates for each session and each number of trials are summarized in Table 1. Fig. 1(a) shows the intra- and intersession reliability of

Discussion

The current study aimed to optimize sp- and ppTMS protocols to examine cortical changes by determining the minimum number of trials required to provide reliable intra- and inter-session outcomes. According to the findings, it can be suggested that the minimum number of trials is 20 for spTMS and 26 for SICI to ensure high intra and inter-session reliability. Although 30 consecutive trials produced highly reliable ICF measures within a session, inter-session reliability was not significant

Conclusion

The present study revealed increasing the number of stimuli improves the reliability of TMS measures, but to a certain level. The optimal ranges of 20–25, 25–30 and 30–35 trials were defined for the assessments of CSE, SICI and ICF, respectively. Excitability measures showed high variability and instability below these ranges, and further elicitation of MEPs did not lead to significant improvements in the reliability of these measures. These findings can have significant implications for

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based on research conducted by Mana Biabani, PhD candidate at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. This project received no external financial support, and has no conflict of interest to report. The authors would like to highly appreciate Dr Nigel Rogasch for his valuable comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the manuscript.

References (40)

  • F. Maeda et al.

    Inter-and intra-individual variability of paired-pulse curves with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

    Clin. Neurophysiol.

    (2002)
  • S. Ngomo et al.

    Comparison of transcranial magnetic stimulation measures obtained at rest and under active conditions and their reliability

    J. Neurosci. Methods

    (2012)
  • R.C. Oldfield

    The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory

    Neuropsychologia

    (1971)
  • M. Orth et al.

    The variability of intracortical inhibition and facilitation

    Clin. Neurophysiol.

    (2003)
  • U. Ziemann et al.

    Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols

    Brain Stimul.

    (2008)
  • U. Ziemann et al.

    TMS and drugs revisited 2014

    Clin. Neurophysiol.

    (2015)
  • G. Abbruzzese et al.

    Clinical and research methods for evaluating cortical excitability

    J. Clin. Neurophysiol.

    (2002)
  • G. Atkinson et al.

    Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine

    Sports Med.

    (1998)
  • B. Boroojerdi et al.

    Reproducibility of intracortical inhibition and facilitation using the paired-pulse paradigm

    Muscle Nerve

    (2000)
  • D. Burke et al.

    Direct comparison of corticospinal volleys in human subjects to transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation

    J. Physiol.

    (1993)
  • Cited by (54)

    • Investigating the intra-session reliability of short and long latency afferent inhibition

      2023, Clinical Neurophysiology Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Similar CVs between our work and Turco et al.’s allow for such comparisons and indicate that both SAI and LAI have better intrasession relative reliability compared to intersession relative reliability (Turco et al., 2019). Similar findings have been reported when comparing the relative reliability of other single and paired-pulse TMS measures, with intrasession reliability being higher than intersession (Biabani et al., 2018; Goldsworthy et al., 2016). Given that relative reliability reflects the ability to identify individuals on repeated testing, it is likely easier to do so in an intrasession format due to less opportunity for change in the various neurochemical and biological factors that govern afferent inhibition (Bruton et al., 2000; Di Lazzaro et al., 2005a; Turco et al., 2018).

    • Sharing motor plans while acting jointly: A TMS study

      2022, Cortex
      Citation Excerpt :

      Considering that CF's performance was too fast or too late in 8 trials per block, this leaves a maximum of 100 analysable trials per block. Therefore, MEPs were calculated based on a maximum of 50 trials for each cue colour and for each condition, which is greater than the majority of TMS experiments involving MEPs and greater than the necessary number of trials to obtain very high reliability of MEPs (Bastani & Jaberzadeh, 2012; Biabani et al., 2018). The high number of MEPs increases the reliability of MEPs and statistical power.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text