ABSTRACT
Introduction Noninvasive neuromodulation (NM) via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is increasingly applied to treat neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, NM effects are highly variable between subjects. E-field orientation (EFO) during NM protocols may heavily contribute to this variability. Investigating the influence of EFO during NM could lead to improved therapeutic protocols by enabling more tailored approaches for patient-specific NM. In the present study, we aimed to examine the influence of varying EFO during continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) on the modulation of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs).
Methods 20 healthy volunteers (8 F; mean age 25.7±2.7 years) took part in this prospective, single blind sham-controlled crossover study consisting of three neuronavigated TMS sessions. The sessions differed only in EFO during cTBS (parallel to optimal EFO for MEP generation [OPT], 90° rotated from OPT [90], 45° rotated from OPT with 7.3 cm spacer [SHAM]). Electromyography was recorded from abductor pollicis brevis, first dorsal interosseous, and adductor digiti minimi muscles during stimulation of the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) motor hotspot. 4 blocks (PRE, POST1, POST2, POST3) with 30 MEPs each were elicited from the motor hotspot. Between the PRE and POST1 block, 40 s of cTBS were performed using one of the three EFO paradigms. Individual POST blocks were separated by a 2 min interval. MEPs were analyzed with linear mixed effects modeling augmented by bootstrapping.
Results A total of 19,830 MEPs were analyzed. Progression through the trial blocks led to heightened MEP amplitudes (e.g., POST3 vs. PRE; log-estimate 0.244, t = 21.43), and later trials were significantly associated with higher MEP amplitudes (spearman’s rho 0.981; p < 0.001). Additionally, on the group level, a significant albeit slight influence of EFO on MEP amplitudes with the 90 paradigm leading to facilitation, and SHAM paradigm leading to suppression of MEP amplitudes was observed when compared to the OPT paradigm (log-estimate 90: 0.135, t = 13.604; log-estimate SHAM: −0.043, t = −4.283). On the subject level, we observed strong heterogeneity between individuals regarding their response to cTBS using varying EFO.
Discussion We observed that MEP amplitudes following cTBS differed significantly based on EFO during NM. This implies that for a given desired NM result, individual EFO optimization may act as an avenue to maximize the NM effect. Therapeutic NM applications might consider EFO as a parameter of interest to be investigated in clinical studies. Additionally, prolonged single-pulse stimulation appeared to possess a NM quality of its own, which should be considered in TMS studies employing single-pulse protocols.
Competing Interest Statement
B.M. and S.K. are consultants for Brainlab AG (Munich, Germany). S.K. is consultant for Ulrich Medical (Ulm, Germany) and Need Inc (Santa Monica, US). N.S. received honoraria from Nexstim Plc (Helsinki, Finland).
Funding Statement
This study was funded by intramural research grants from Klinikum Rechts der Isar.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Technical University of Munich (Grillparzer Str. 16, 81675 Munich) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Contact Information: Silas Preis: silas.preis{at}tum.de, Su Hwan Kim: suhwan.kim{at}tum.de, Paul Schandelmair: paul.schandelmaier{at}gmail.com, Claus Zimmer: claus.zimmer{at}tum.de, Bernhard Meyer: bernhard.meyer{at}tum.de, Sandro M. Krieg: sandro.krieg{at}med.uni-heidelberg.de, Nico Sollmann: nico.sollmann{at}tum.de
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Abbreviations
- 3D
- Three-dimensional
- ADM
- Adductor digiti minimi
- ANOVA
- Analysis of variance
- APB
- Abductor pollicis brevis
- cTBS
- Continuous theta burst stimulation
- EEG
- Electroencephalography
- EFO
- E-field orientation
- EMG
- Electromyography
- FDI
- First dorsal interosseus
- fMRI
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging
- MEP
- Motor-evoked potential
- MSO
- Maximum stimulator output
- NM
- Neuromodulation
- rMT
- Resting motor threshold
- TMS
- Transcranial magnetic stimulation