Abstract
IntroductionTranscranial electrical (TES) and magnetic stimulation (TMS) are both used for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord in horses. Muscular motor evoked potentials (mMEP) were compared intra-individually for both techniques in five healthy horses. mMEPs were measured twice at increasing stimulation intensity steps over the extensor carpi radialis (ECR), tibialis cranialis (TC), and caninus muscles. Significance was set at p < 0.05. To support the hypothesis that both techniques induce extracranially elicited mMEPs, literature was also reviewed.ResultsBoth techniques show the presence of late mMEPs below the transcranial threshold appearing as extracranially elicited startle responses. The occurrence of these late mMEPs is especially important for interpretation of TMS tracings when coil misalignment can have an additional influence. Mean transcranial motor latency times (MLT; synaptic delays included) and conduction velocities (CV) of the ECR and TC were significantly different between both techniques: respectively, 4.2 and 5.5 ms (MLTTMS–-MLTTES), and −7.7 and −9.9 m/s (CVTMS-CVTES). TMS and TES show intensity-dependent latency decreases of, respectively, −2.6 (ECR) and −2.7 ms (TC)/30% magnetic intensity and −2.6 (ECR) and −3.2 (TC) ms/30V. When compared to TMS, TES shows the lowest coefficients of variation and highest reproducibility and accuracy for MLTs. This is ascribed to the fact that TES activates a lower number of cascaded interneurons, allows for multipulse stimulation, has an absence of coil repositioning errors, and has less sensitivity for varying degrees of background muscle tonus. Real axonal conduction times and conduction velocities are most closely approximated by TES.ConclusionBoth intracranial and extracranial mMEPs inevitably carry characteristics of brainstem reflexes. To avoid false interpretations, transcranial mMEPs can be identified by a stepwise latency shortening of 15–20 ms when exceeding the transcranial motor threshold at increasing stimulation intensities. A ring block around the vertex is advised to reduce interference by extracranial mMEPs. mMEPs reflect the functional integrity of the route along the brainstem nuclei, extrapyramidal motor tracts, propriospinal neurons, and motoneurons. The corticospinal tract appears subordinate in horses. TMS and TES are interchangeable for assessing the functional integrity of motor functions of the spinal cord. However, TES reveals significantly shorter MLTs, higher conduction velocities, and better reproducibility.
Highlights
Transcranial electrical (TES) and magnetic stimulation (TMS) are both used for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord in horses
Occurrence of brain stem and high cervical reflexes are explored in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in relation to late Muscular motor evoked potentials (mMEP). (2) We aim to check whether normative data for mMEP latencies, motor conduction velocities (MCV), and motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes from both techniques can be considered interchangeable; (3) to check whether significant left-to-right body side differences can be found for these mMEP parameters within and between both techniques; and (4) to compare reproducibility of measurements between transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and TMS techniques
motor latency time (MLT) are very suitable for that purpose and are, on average, several milliseconds longer (4–5.5 ms) for TMS when compared to TES
Summary
Transcranial electrical (TES) and magnetic stimulation (TMS) are both used for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord in horses. Transcranial stimulation (TS), either magnetic or electrical, has become a standard technique for assessment of the motor function of the human spinal cord by measuring either epidural or muscle motor evoked potentials (mMEPs) (MacDonald et al, 2013; Ziemann, 2017). TES was introduced as a valuable alternative for TMS, to assess the functional integrity of the spinal cord in horses (Journée et al, 2018). TES and TMS share many neurophysiological properties, there are important differences. Differences can be expected, standardized studies comparing both techniques are currently lacking
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.