4.6 Article

Inter-individual variation in the efficient stimulation site for magnetic brainstem stimulation

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 10, 页码 2044-2048

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.03.025

关键词

Brainstem stimulation; Pyramidal tract; Inter-individual variation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [22390181, 22590954, 20591019]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [H20-023]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20591019, 11J04447, 22590954] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate inter-individual variation in the efficiency of magnetic brainstem stimulation (BST) with regard to the stimulation site. Methods: We studied 31 healthy subjects, using a right hand muscle as a recording site. Three stimulation sites were compared: BST over the inion (inion BST), and BST over the midpoint between the inion and the right (ipsilateral BST) or left (contralateral BST) mastoid process. Five suprathreshold BSTs were performed for each stimulation site using the same stimulation intensity. The mean peak-to-peak amplitudes of motor evoked potential (MEP) were compared. The active motor threshold (AMT) and onset latency for inion BST and ipsilateral BST were also measured and compared. Results: Contralateral BST did not evoke discernible MEPs in most subjects. In 21 subjects (67.7%), ipsilateral BST elicited larger MEPs than inion BST did, and AMT for ipsilateral BST was lower than or equal to the AMT for inion BST in all subjects. Ipsilateral BST elicited shorter latency in such subjects. Conclusions: The suitable stimulation site for BST differed among subjects. About two-thirds showed larger MEP to ipsilateral BST. Significance: These findings might help us to find an efficient stimulation site for BST in each subject. (C) 2011 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据