eprintid: 10151975 rev_number: 9 eprint_status: archive userid: 699 dir: disk0/10/15/19/75 datestamp: 2022-07-13 09:19:33 lastmod: 2024-10-22 10:41:13 status_changed: 2022-07-13 09:19:33 type: article metadata_visibility: show sword_depositor: 699 creators_name: Cengiz, Bülent creators_name: Boran, H Evren creators_name: Alaydın, Halil Can creators_name: Tankisi, Hatice creators_name: Samusyte, Gintaute creators_name: Howells, James creators_name: Koltzenburg, Martin creators_name: Bostock, Hugh title: Short latency afferent inhibition: comparison between threshold-tracking and conventional amplitude recording methods ispublished: pub subjects: UCH divisions: C07 divisions: F84 divisions: B02 divisions: UCL divisions: D07 keywords: Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Neurosciences, Neurosciences & Neurology, Short latency afferent inhibition, Amplitude measurement, Threshold-tracking, Variability, TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION, INTERVAL INTRACORTICAL INHIBITION, MOTOR CORTEX, PLASTICITY note: This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. abstract: Short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), which is conventionally measured as a reduction in motor evoked potential amplitude (A-SAI), is of clinical interest as a potential biomarker for cognitive impairment. Since threshold-tracking has some advantages for clinical studies of short-interval cortical inhibition, we have compared A-SAI with a threshold-tracking alternative method (T-SAI). In the T-SAI method, inhibition was calculated by tracking the required TMS intensity for the targeted MEP amplitude (200 uV) both for the test (TMS only) and paired (TMS and peripheral stimulation) stimuli. A-SAI and T-SAI were recorded from 31 healthy subjects using ten stimuli at each of 12 inter-stimulus intervals, once in the morning and again in the afternoon. There were no differences between morning and afternoon recordings. When A-SAI was normalized by log conversion it was closely related to T-SAI. Between subjects, variability was similar for the two techniques, but within-subject variability was significantly smaller for normalized A-SAI. Conventional amplitude measurements appear more sensitive for detecting changes within-subjects, such as in interventional studies, but threshold-tracking may be as sensitive as detecting abnormal SAI in a patient. date: 2022-02-22 date_type: published publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC official_url: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-022-06327-5 oa_status: green full_text_type: other language: eng primo: open primo_central: open_green verified: verified_manual elements_id: 1941292 doi: 10.1007/s00221-022-06327-5 medium: Print-Electronic pii: 10.1007/s00221-022-06327-5 lyricists_name: Koltzenburg, Martin lyricists_name: Bostock, Hugh lyricists_id: MKOLT33 lyricists_id: HBOST26 actors_name: Dewerpe, Marie actors_id: MDDEW97 actors_role: owner funding_acknowledgements: R346-2020-1946 [Lundbeck Foundation] full_text_status: public publication: Experimental Brain Research volume: 240 number: 4 pagerange: 1241-1247 pages: 7 event_location: Germany citation: Cengiz, Bülent; Boran, H Evren; Alaydın, Halil Can; Tankisi, Hatice; Samusyte, Gintaute; Howells, James; Koltzenburg, Martin; Cengiz, Bülent; Boran, H Evren; Alaydın, Halil Can; Tankisi, Hatice; Samusyte, Gintaute; Howells, James; Koltzenburg, Martin; Bostock, Hugh; - view fewer <#> (2022) Short latency afferent inhibition: comparison between threshold-tracking and conventional amplitude recording methods. Experimental Brain Research , 240 (4) pp. 1241-1247. 10.1007/s00221-022-06327-5 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-022-06327-5>. Green open access document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10151975/1/Koltzenburg_SAI%20manuscript.pdf