Toward standardized MEP recording? Exploring the role of electrode configuration in TMS studies
Ana Carolina Borges Valente,Lucas dos Santos Betioli,Lidiane Aparecida Fernandes,Daniela Morales,Lilian Pinto da Silva,Marco Antonio Cavalcanti Garcia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1488438
IF: 3.473
2024-11-13
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Abstract:1 IntroductionTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been widely used in investigating motor control under health and pathological conditions, bringing valuable insights into the neurophysiological underlying mechanisms mainly from the motor evoked potential (MEP) properties (Garcia et al., 2017; Moraes et al., 2023; Spampinato et al., 2023). The MEP is an electromyogram (EMG) response resulting from a single TMS pulse recorded at rest or during submaximal voluntary contraction. Hence, the MEP helps us to interpret some properties of bulbar or corticospinal excitability (Spampinato et al., 2023) and, consequently, to assess different aspects of the motor system. Besides being adopted as a diagnostic parameter, the MEP is also a key reference in determining stimulation intensity in repetitive TMS (rTMS) treatment protocols (Turi et al., 2021; 2022). Consequently, substantial methodological progress has been made to enhance the consistency of TMS recording. In this context, ensuring the correct positioning of the TMS coil on the patient's head to evoke reliable muscle responses and reduce variability in MEP properties, such as its peak-to-peak value (MEPP-P), represents a sine qua non-condition. This requirement has become even more prominent with the development of neuronavigation systems (Krings et al., 2001; Ruohonen and Karhu, 2010) and their ongoing refinements (Souza et al., 2018a; Matsuda et al., 2023). Moreover, the introduction of autonomous robotic handling (Kantelhardt et al., 2010; Harquel et al., 2016) brought additional significant advantages for more effective control of the TMS coil, which, since their advent, also become progressively accurate for this purpose (Matsuda et al., 2024). However, while we observe many advancements ensuring precision in TMS applications, we can also note, for instance, a rather expressive number of studies using different surface electrode montages (Moraes et al., 2023; Koponen et al., 2024) to record the EMG signal. However, depending on the montage and dimension of the surface electrodes, it will be possible to identify significant differences in specific MEP properties, such as spectral composition, number of phases, and MEPP-P.Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing that although there are some recommendations for surface electrode montages for registering the surface EMG (sEMG) in many aspects of human performance (Hermens et al., 2000), there seems to be no agreement regarding MEP recording. Indeed, Garcia et al. (2017; 2020; 2023) have addressed this issue, highlighting how the lack of standardization could lead to misinterpretations of the bulbar- and corticospinal excitability profile. Therefore, the present manuscript discusses how different surface electrode montages contribute to MEP properties and their consequences in interpreting motor cortical excitability. In addition, we present findings derived from a pilot trial in which the myoelectric activity of biceps brachii (BB) was recorded using multichannel electromyography (HD-sEMG) to shed light on the issues presented therein. 2 The Surface Electromyography (sEMG) in Muscle Activity AssessmentSurface EMG is a widely used technique for the non-invasive assessment of muscle activity (Temesi et al., 2014; Peres et al., 2018). However, similarly to other biological signals such as the electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram, the location of surface electrodes is also crucial in ensuring the reliability and accuracy of the recorded sEMG signal (Garcia and Vieira, 2011; Merlo and Campanini, 2021). In light of the many variables to be aware of in the sEMG signal acquisition process, some initiatives have introduced recommendations to optimize this signal recording. For instance, the SENIAM project (Surface ElectroMyography for the Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles; www.seniam.org; Hermens et al., 2000) and, more recently, the CEDE project (Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography; https://isek.org/cede-project/; Besomi et al., 2019) represent two initiatives focused on ensuring the widespread establishment of guidelines on the use of sEMG. It is worth noting that although the SENIAM recommendations were not explicitly designed for MEP recording, they have also been widely used in TMS studies (Mrachacz-Kersting et al., 2021; Kindred et al., 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2022; Koponen et al., 2024).In turn, the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN; https://www.ifcn.info/) (Groppa et al., 2012) has broadened the debate on recording myoelectric activity, whether invasive or not, which includes MEP recording. It is interesting to highlight that SENIAM/CEDE and IFCN recommend different surface electrode montages to record the sEMG signal. However, how can both surface electrode montages affect the recording and, consequently, the MEP interpretation?3 SENIAM/CEDE vs IFCN Recommendations for Surface Electrode Montages and Their I -Abstract Truncated-
psychology,neurosciences