Variants of relative frequency methods for determining transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold do not provide accurate estimation of threshold
Wang, B.; Goetz, S. M.; Peterchev, A. V.
Show abstract
Relative frequency methods such as five-out-of-ten have been used for a long time to determine motor threshold of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), despite known severe limitations both in accuracy and speed. Variants of relative frequency methods have been developed to improve performance, such as adaptive staircasing and the recent RMT-Finder using binary search. However, they do not solve the fundamental problem underlying the use of relative frequencies to approximate the 50% TMS response rate at threshold. We demonstrate that the probability of false decisions using relative frequency due to at least half the pulses resulting in responses at subthreshold intensities or more than half the pulses resulting in no responses at suprathreshold intensity cannot be sufficiently reduced unless an impractically high pulse count is used, which substantially increases the duration of the thresholding procedure. Simulations in a virtual population of 25,000 subjects reveal that the accuracy of relative frequency methods is not improved by the adaptive staircasing or binary search variants. Although these variants reduce the number of pulses required to reach an estimate compared to the conventional relative frequency method, they are still slower and less accurate than more advanced thresholding methods such as stochastic approximation or maximum likelihood estimation. Therefore, these faster and more accurate methods should become the standard for motor thresholding of TMS, and the use of methods based on relative frequency should be discouraged. HighlightsO_LITMS motor thresholding should not use relative-frequency methods. C_LIO_LIRelative-frequency methods have a high probability of making false decisions. C_LIO_LIVariants of relative-frequency methods do not improve threshold accuracy. C_LIO_LIStochastic approximation or maximum-likelihood estimation are faster and more accurate. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Three Novel Methods for Determining Motor Threshold with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Outperform Conventional Procedures 97%
- Responses of Model Cortical Neurons to Temporal Interference Stimulation and Related Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation Modalities 95%
- Enhanced selectivity of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation by multielectrode configuration 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Kilohertz Transcranial Magnetic Perturbation (kTMP): A New Non-invasive Method to Modulate Cortical Excitability 94%
- Biologically plausible phosphene simulation forthe differentiable optimization of visual corticalprostheses 92%
- Perceptual responses to microstimulation frequency are spatially organized in human somatosensory cortex 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated search of stimulation targets with closed-loop transcranial magnetic stimulation 96%
- Assessment of cortical excitability in awake rhesus macaques with transcranial magnetic stimulation: translational insights from recruitment curves 95%
- Towards domain-general predictive coding: Expected TMS excites the motor system less effectively than unexpected stimulation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Electric field based dosing for TMS 96%
- Extracting Reproducible Components from Electroencephalographic Responses to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with Group Task-Related Component Analysis 92%
- Characterising the contribution of auditory and somatosensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials following stimulation of prefrontal, premotor and parietal cortex 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.