TY - JOUR T1 - Duration and reliability of the silent period in individuals with spinal cord injury JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124701 SP - 2020.06.07.20124701 AU - Hannah Sfreddo AU - Jaclyn R. Wecht AU - Ola Alsalman AU - Yu-Kuang Wu AU - Noam Y. Harel Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/02/2020.06.07.20124701.abstract N2 - Designs Observational.Objectives We aim to better understand the silent period (SP), an inhibitory counterpart to the well-known motor evoked potential (MEP) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).Setting Veterans Affairs Hospital in New York.Methods Electromyographic responses were measured in the target abductor pollicis brevis at rest (TMS at 120% of resting motor threshold (RMT)) and during maximal effort (TMS at 110% of RMT). Participants with chronic cervical SCI (n=9) and able-bodied volunteers (n=12) underwent between 3-7 sessions of stimulation on separate days. The primary outcomes were the magnitude and reliability of SP duration, resting and active MEP amplitudes, and RMT.Results SCI participants showed significantly lower MEP amplitudes compared to AB participants. SCI SP duration was not significantly different from AB SP duration. SP duration demonstrated reduced intra-participant variability within and across sessions compared with MEP amplitudes. SCI participants also demonstrated a higher prevalence of SP ‘interruptions’ compared to AB participants.Conclusions SP reflects a balance between corticospinal excitatory and inhibitory processes. SP duration is more reliable within and across multiple sessions than MEP amplitude.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis experiment was an exploratory portion of a larger study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02469675)Funding StatementSupported by New York State Department of Health C30599 and Craig H. Neilsen Foundation 457648.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:James J. Peters VAMC Institutional Review Board approval number 01602.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. ER -