Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Brain Stimul. 2018 May - Jun;11(3):536-544. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.12.010. Epub 2017 Dec 29.

Test-retest reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation EEG evoked potentials.

Author information

1
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; The Sierra Pacific Mental Illness, Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA 94394, USA; Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
2
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; The Sierra Pacific Mental Illness, Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA 94394, USA.
3
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; The Sierra Pacific Mental Illness, Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA 94394, USA; School of Automation Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510640, China.
4
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; The Sierra Pacific Mental Illness, Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA 94394, USA. Electronic address: amitetkin@stanford.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs), recorded using electroencephalography (TMS-EEG), offer a powerful tool for measuring causal interactions in the human brain. However, the test-retest reliability of TEPs, critical to their use in clinical biomarker and interventional studies, remains poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS:

We quantified TEP reliability to: (i) determine the minimal TEP amplitude change which significantly exceeds that associated with simply re-testing, (ii) locate the most reliable scalp regions of interest (ROIs) and TEP peaks, and (iii) determine the minimal number of TEP pulses for achieving reliability.

METHODS:

TEPs resulting from stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were collected on two separate days in sixteen healthy participants. TEP peak amplitudes were compared between alternating trials, split-halves of the same run, two runs five minutes apart and two runs on separate days. Reliability was quantified using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and smallest detectable change (SDC).

RESULTS:

Substantial concordance was achieved in prefrontal electrodes at 40 and 60 ms, centroparietal and left parietal ROIs at 100 ms, and central electrodes at 200 ms. Minimum SDC was found in the same regions and peaks, particularly for the peaks at 100 and 200 ms. CCC, but not SDC, reached optimal values by 60-100 pulses per run with saturation beyond this number, while SDC continued to improve with increased pulse numbers.

CONCLUSION:

TEPs were robust and reliable, requiring a relatively small number of trials to achieve stability, and are thus well suited as outcomes in clinical biomarker or interventional studies.

KEYWORDS:

Electroencephalogram (EEG); Evoked potentials; Plasticity; Reliability; Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

PMID:
29342443
DOI:
10.1016/j.brs.2017.12.010
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center