Affiliation:
1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can monitor or modulate brain excitability. However, reliability of TMS outcomes depends on consistent coil placement during stimulation. Neuronavigated TMS systems can address this issue, but their cost limits their use outside of specialist research environments. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the performance of a low-cost navigated TMS approach in improving coil placement consistency and its effect on motor evoked potentials (MEPs) when targeting the biceps brachii at rest and during voluntary contractions. Methods: We implemented a navigated TMS system using a low-cost 3D camera system and open-source software environment programmed using the Unity 3D engine. MEPs were collected from the biceps brachii at rest and during voluntary contractions across two sessions in ten non-disabled individuals. Motor hotspots were recorded and targeted via two conditions: navigated and conventional. Results: The low-cost navigated TMS system reduced coil orientation error (pitch: 1.18°±1.2°, yaw: 1.99°±1.9°, roll: 1.18°±2.2° with navigation, versus pitch: 3.7°±5.7°, yaw: 3.11°±3.1°, roll: 3.8°±9.1° with conventional). The improvement in coil orientation had no effect on MEP amplitudes and variability. Conclusions: The low-cost system is a suitable alternative to expensive systems in tracking the motor hotspot between sessions and quantifying the error in coil placement when delivering TMS. Biceps MEP variability reflects physiological variability across a range of voluntary efforts, that can be captured equally well with navigated or conventional approaches of coil locating.
Subject
Neurology (clinical),Developmental Neuroscience,Neurology
Reference38 articles.
1. Impact of coil position and electrophysiological monitoring on determination of motor thresholds to transcranial magnetic stimulation;Conforto,;Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology,2004
2. Variability of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation depends on muscle activation;Darling,;Experimental Brain Research,2006
3. Electric and magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex: Surface EMG and single motor unit responses;Day,;The Journal of Physiology,1989
4. Input-output properties and gain changes in the human corticospinal pathway;Devanne,;Experimental Brain Research,1997
5. Effects of voluntary contraction on descending volleys evoked by transcranial stimulation in conscious humans;Di Lazzaro,;The Journal of Physiology,1998