Observational analysis shows increased motor evoked potential in healthy subjects and ALS due to low muscle activity, suggesting need for revised RMT thresholds.
Introduction In many clinical and research settings, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) intensities are standardised based on resting motor threshold (RMT). It is well-established that contraction of the target muscle increases motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude and correspondingly decreases RMT. As such, when estimating RMT it is crucial to ensure the target muscle is relaxed. Typically trials in which baseline electromyographic (EMG) amplitude exceeds a specified threshold are rejected. The influence of motor activity below typical rejection thresholds on MEP amplitudes has yet to be established. Methods We retrospectively analysed TMS-EMG data collected during RMT measurement in 45 healthy controls (1761 datapoints) and 35 people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, 1238 datapoints). Trials where root mean squared (RMS) baseline EMG amplitude exceeded 10 µV were rejected. Generalised linear mixed-effects models were used to assess effects of muscle activity below this rejection threshold on probability of evoking an MEP with peak-to-peak amplitude ≥50 µV . Results Greater sub-rejection-threshold activity significantly increases MEP probability in controls (p<0.0004) and people with ALS (p=0.0010). Models predicted a 31-38% increase in MEP probability when baseline RMS-EMG amplitude increased from 1 µV to 9 µV . Sub-rejection– threshold baseline activity was significantly greater in ALS than controls (p=0.0055). Discussion We have shown for the first time that higher EMG amplitudes below a typical rejection threshold markedly increase probability of evoking an MEP with peak-to-peak amplitude ≥50 µV . Researchers should take measures to account for effects of sub-rejection–threshold activity on RMT, particularly in populations where baseline activity may be elevated, such as in ALS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Sullivan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: