Motor and phosphene thresholds: a transcranial magnetic stimulation correlation study
Introduction
The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in investigations of the motor system has advanced further than in studies of the visual system. One of the main reasons for this is that a muscle response elicited by TMS and measured by electromyogram (EMG) provides a reasonably objective measure of the individual subject's sensitivity to stimulation. This measure can then be used in other motor experiments to calibrate the level of stimulation across subjects by applying TMS at a given percentage of each subject's motor threshold. A standardized method of calibrating stimulation intensity to an individual subject's sensitivity is important for at least two reasons. Firstly, motor thresholds are commonly used as a valuable guide in establishing the envelope of safety in TMS studies [16].. Secondly, a standardized method of setting stimulation level according to an individual's sensitivity allows findings from different TMS studies to be more directly comparable. Non-motor TMS experiments do not at present benefit from such a standardized procedure. Studies of visual cortex have variously used stimulator output levels ranging from 35 to 100% of stimulator output to achieve functional disruption [2], [6], [13] but rarely are these levels chosen on the basis of an individual's sensitivity to TMS.
Single pulse or repetitive TMS can be used to readily elicit phosphenes in healthy subjects [12]. Two studies have used TMS to elicit phosphenes in migraine sufferers in order to determine whether, as a group, the excitability of occipital cortex differs from that of non-migraine sufferers [1], [4]. The present study suggests that phosphene threshold be used as a measure of occipital cortex excitability in healthy subjects, in the same way that motor threshold is used as an index of cortical excitability of this area. In order to investigate the potential usefulness of phosphene thresholds as an analogue of motor thresholds, it is first necessary first to establish whether phosphene thresholds correlate with motor thresholds. If this were found to be the case, experimenters would have the option of using visual or motor measures to standardize the stimulation intensity to the individual subject's sensitivity. If they were not found to correlate, one might propose that TMS studies of vision or cognition should calibrate stimulation intensity as a function of phosphene rather than motor threshold since the former is more likely to reflect the sensitivity of the areas which will be stimulated. However, in order for phosphene thresholds to be truly useful, they must be demonstrated to be as robust as motor thresholds.
Section snippets
Methods
Fifteen subjects, aged between 19 and 37 and all right handed, took part in the experiment. All 15 had visual and motor thresholds measured and seven of them returned to have these measures repeated at least 1 week later. Subjects reported absence of epilepsy, migraine, or any other neurological condition in themselves and their known family history. Ethical committee approval was granted for all procedures.
The stimulator used was a Magstim TM model 200 (Magstim, Whitland, Dyfed) connected to a
Phosphene thresholds
Stimulation, applied over the occipital midline and between 2 and 4 cm above the inion, elicited phosphenes in all 15 subjects. Phosphene threshold ranged between 35 and 85% of stimulator output. Phosphene thresholds of the seven subjects who were retested at least 1 week later ranged between 35 and 65% stimulator output. There was a significant correlation between the phosphene thresholds at the two times of testing (Fig. 1, correlation coefficient=0.7; P<0.01).
Motor thresholds
Stimulation over the right motor
Discussion
The findings of this study were:
- 1.
Phosphene and motor thresholds were robust across testing sessions held at least a week apart.
- 2.
Phosphene and motor thresholds differed within subjects with phosphene threshold greater than motor threshold except in two cases.
- 3.
Phosphene thresholds were more variable across subjects than motor thresholds.
- 4.
Phosphene and motor thresholds did not correlate with each other.
The finding that visual phosphene thresholds were stable across different testing sessions held at
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the MRC. V. Walsh's work is supported by a Royal Society University Research fellowship.
References (17)
- et al.
Suppression of visual perception by magnetic coil stimulation of human occipital cortex
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
(1989) - et al.
Temporal aspects of visual search studied by transcranial magnetic stimulation
Neuropsychologia
(1997) - et al.
Cortical plasticity in perceptual learning demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation
Neuropsychologia
(1998) - et al.
Frontal and parietal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) disturbs programming of saccadic eye movements
Journal of Neurological Sciences
(1995) - et al.
Interictal cortical excitability in migraine: a study using transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor and visual cortices
Annals of Neurology
(1998) - et al.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation confirms hyperexcitability of occipital cortex in migraine
Neurology
(1998) - et al.
Localizing the site of magnetic brain stimulation in humans
Neurology
(1990) - et al.
The selectivity and timing of motion processing in human temporo-parieto-occipital cortex: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study
Neuropsychologia
(1999)
Cited by (268)
Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on reactive response inhibition
2024, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsTMS combined with EEG: Recommendations and open issues for data collection and analysis
2023, Brain StimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: What is stimulated? – A consensus and critical position paper
2022, Clinical NeurophysiologyVisuomotor integration in early Alzheimer's disease: A TMS study
2022, Journal of the Neurological SciencesCitation Excerpt :The phosphene threshold (PT) was determined as previously described [18,23]. The center of the conditioning coil was placed over the phosphene hot spot according to an established method [24]. Although the horizontal direction with induced currents from lateral to medial might be favored to determine phosphenes [25,26], the vertical direction was chosen because it allows the simultaneous use of two coils for paired stimulation.