RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Duration and reliability of the silent period in individuals with spinal cord injury
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.06.07.20124701
DO 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124701
A1 Sfreddo, Hannah
A1 Wecht, Jaclyn R.
A1 Alsalman, Ola
A1 Wu, Yu-Kuang
A1 Harel, Noam Y.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/12/2020.06.07.20124701.abstract
AB Objective 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).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 increased RMT, decreased MEP amplitudes, and non-significantly longer SP duration compared to AB participants. In contrast to high inter-participant variability, SP duration demonstrated reduced intra-participant variability within and across sessions compared with resting and active 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.Significance The higher reliability of SP duration may make it a useful outcome measure for future trials of SCI interventions.HighlightsWe compared characteristics of the silent period between individuals with spinal cord injury and able-bodied volunteers.Silent period duration was insignificantly longer in spinal cord injury individuals.Silent period duration was found to be a more reliable within-subject metric than motor evoked potential 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.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. The raw electromyography files underlying the data will be uploaded to Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury, at: https://scicrunch.org/odc-sci https://scicrunch.org/odc-sci