Murdoch University Research Repository

Welcome to the Murdoch University Research Repository

The Murdoch University Research Repository is an open access digital collection of research
created by Murdoch University staff, researchers and postgraduate students.

Learn more

A comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential

Pitcher, J.B., Doeltgen, S.H., Goldsworthy, M.R, Schneider, L.A, Vallence, A.M.ORCID: 0000-0001-9190-6366, Smith, A.E, Semmler, J.G, McDonnell, M.N. and Ridding, M.C. (2015) A comparison of two methods for estimating 50% of the maximal motor evoked potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 126 (12). pp. 2337-2341.

Link to Published Version:
*Subscription may be required


OBJECTIVES: Two commonly-used methods for setting stimulus intensities in transcranial magnetic brain stimulation studies were compared to determine which best approximated a motor evoked potential (MEP) of 50% of the maximal MEP amplitude (SI50); a suprathreshold intensity relative to resting motor threshold (rMT) or adjusting the intensity to evoke an MEP amplitude of 1mV. METHODS: Corticomotor stimulus-response curves and rMT for the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle of 176 subjects (aged 10-74years) were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: Regardless of subject age or sex, SI50 occurred at 127.5+/-11.3% rMT. Except in young children, MEPs of 1mV were significantly smaller than those evoked at SI50. CONCLUSIONS: In the inactive FDI muscle, a stimulus intensity of 127-128% rMT consistently gives the best approximation of SI50 in most subjects, except perhaps young children. SIGNIFICANCE: Setting TMS stimulus intensities relative to rMT provides a less variable inter-subject comparator, with respect to individual differences in corticomotor input-output characteristics, than adjusting the stimulator output to give an absolute MEP magnitude.

Item Type: Journal Article
Murdoch Affiliation(s): School of Psychology and Exercise Science
Publisher: Elsevier
Copyright: © 2015 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.
Notes: Available online 28 February 2015
Item Control Page Item Control Page