RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Large-scale analysis of interindividual variability in single and paired-pulse TMS data: results from the ‘Big TMS Data Collaboration’
JF bioRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
SP 2021.01.24.428014
DO 10.1101/2021.01.24.428014
A1 Daniel T. Corp
A1 Hannah G. K. Bereznicki
A1 Gillian M. Clark
A1 George J. Youssef
A1 Peter J. Fried
A1 Ali Jannati
A1 Charlotte B. Davies
A1 Joyce Gomes-Osman
A1 Melissa Kirkovski
A1 Natalia Albein-Urios
A1 Paul B. Fitzgerald
A1 Giacomo Koch
A1 Vincenzo Di Lazzaro
A1 Alvaro Pascual-Leone
A1 Peter G. Enticott
A1 the Big TMS Data Collaboration
YR 2021
UL http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/26/2021.01.24.428014.abstract
AB Objective Interindividual variability of single and paired-pulse TMS data has limited the clinical and experimental applicability of these methods. This study brought together over 60 TMS researchers to create the largest known sample of individual participant single and paired-pulse TMS data to date, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of factors driving response variability.Methods 118 corresponding authors provided deidentified individual TMS data. Mixed-effects regression investigated a range of individual and study level variables for their contribution to variability in response to single and pp TMS data.Results 687 healthy participant’s TMS data was pooled across 35 studies. Target muscle, pulse waveform, neuronavigation use, and TMS machine significantly predicted an individual’s single pulse TMS amplitude. Baseline MEP amplitude, M1 hemisphere, and biphasic AMT significantly predicted SICI response. Baseline MEP amplitude, test stimulus intensity, interstimulus interval, monophasic RMT, monophasic AMT, and biphasic RMT significantly predicted ICF response. Age, M1 hemisphere, and TMS machine significantly predicted motor threshold.Conclusions This large-scale analysis has identified a number of factors influencing participants’ responses to single and paired pulse TMS. We provide specific recommendations to increase the standardisation of TMS methods within and across laboratories, thereby minimising interindividual variability in single and pp TMS data.Highlights687 healthy participant’s TMS data was pooled across 35 studiesSignificant relationships between age and resting motor thresholdSignificant relationships between baseline MEP amplitude and SICI/ICFCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.TMSTranscranial magnetic stimulationMEPmotor evoked potentialpppaired-pulseSICIshort-interval intracortical inhibitionICFintracortical facilitationIVindependent variableDVdependent variableNormalised MEPDV for SICI and ICF analyses (conditioned MEP amplitude expressed as a percentage of the baseline MEP amplitude)CSconditioning stimulus (initial pulse for paired-pulse TMS protocols)TStest stimulus (second pulse for pp TMS protocols, or unconditioned / baseline MEPs for pp protoocol)ISIinterstimulus intervalRMTresting motor thresholdAMTactive motor thresholdPulse waveformmonophasic or biphasic pulse waveforms