Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a frequently used non-invasive mapping technique for investigating the human motor system. Recently, neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has been established as an alternative approach. We here compared the test–retest reliability o...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2013-02, Vol.66, p.531-542 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 542 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 531 |
| container_title | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) |
| container_volume | 66 |
| creator | Weiss, Carolin Nettekoven, Charlotte Rehme, Anne K. Neuschmelting, Volker Eisenbeis, Andrea Goldbrunner, Roland Grefkes, Christian |
| description | Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a frequently used non-invasive mapping technique for investigating the human motor system. Recently, neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has been established as an alternative approach. We here compared the test–retest reliability of both mapping techniques with regard to the cortical representations of the hand, leg, face and tongue areas.
Ten healthy subjects were examined three times (intervals: 3–5days/21–35days) with fMRI and nTMS. Motor-evoked potentials were recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis, plantaris, mentalis and the tongue muscles. The same muscles were activated in an fMRI motor task. Euclidean distances (ED) between hotspots and centers of gravity (CoG) were computed for the respective somatotopic representations. Furthermore, spatial reliability was tested by intersession overlap volumes (OV) and voxel-wise intraclass correlations (ICC).
Feasibility of fMRI was 100% for all body parts and sessions. In contrast, nTMS was feasible in all sessions and subjects only for the hand area, while mappings of the foot (90%), face (70%) and tongue representations (40%) remained incomplete in several subjects due to technical constraints and co-stimulation artifacts. On average, the mean ED of the hotspots was better for fMRI (6.2±1.1mm) compared to nTMS (10.8±1.9mm) while stability of CoG was similar for both methods. Peak voxel reliability (ICC) was high for both methods (>0.8), and there was no influence of inter-session intervals. In contrast, the reliability of mapping the spatial extent of the hand, foot, lips and tongue representations was poor to moderate for both fMRI and nTMS (OVs and ICC |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.046 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1613949169</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S105381191201049X</els_id><sourcerecordid>3396571411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-a6e866e0f1d22ee3f312cbcaad4c24c4e07647db34d2710136c460c827ded38a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks9u1DAQxiMEoqXwCsgSQuJAFo-dOMkRKv5U6gqplLPltSdbr7J2sJ0VvfUJeuIJeRKc7kIlLj155PnNzOf5XBQE6AIoiHebhcMpeLtVa1wwCixfL2glHhXHQLu67OqGPZ7jmpctQHdUPItxQyntoGqfFkeMA4gW2HFxu1TjaN2apCskV8qZt6T3PpEckV5pJAHHgBFdUsl6F4l1d-gY8vBwTbY--UC0Dwl_kt83v8gFJowplw1Wrexg0zXxPbmT69TOrlVCQy6X38gOQ5wi6Sen585qIMuLs-fFk14NEV8czpPi-6ePl6dfyvOvn89O35-XuuaQSiWwFQJpD4YxRN5zYHqllTKVZpWukDaiasyKV4Y1eWNc6EpQ3bLGoOGt4ifFm33fMfgfUxYstzZqHAbl0E9RggDeVR2I7mG0pnla9qDJ6Kv_0I2fQn7aTNWMMlZ3babaPaWDjzFgLw_LlEDlbK_cyHt75WzvnMn25tKXhwHTaovmX-FfPzPw-gCoqNXQB-W0jfdcA_P_mJV-2HOYl7yzGGTUFp1GYwPqJI23D6v5A1lOylM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1552022598</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Weiss, Carolin ; Nettekoven, Charlotte ; Rehme, Anne K. ; Neuschmelting, Volker ; Eisenbeis, Andrea ; Goldbrunner, Roland ; Grefkes, Christian</creator><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Carolin ; Nettekoven, Charlotte ; Rehme, Anne K. ; Neuschmelting, Volker ; Eisenbeis, Andrea ; Goldbrunner, Roland ; Grefkes, Christian</creatorcontrib><description>Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a frequently used non-invasive mapping technique for investigating the human motor system. Recently, neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has been established as an alternative approach. We here compared the test–retest reliability of both mapping techniques with regard to the cortical representations of the hand, leg, face and tongue areas.
Ten healthy subjects were examined three times (intervals: 3–5days/21–35days) with fMRI and nTMS. Motor-evoked potentials were recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis, plantaris, mentalis and the tongue muscles. The same muscles were activated in an fMRI motor task. Euclidean distances (ED) between hotspots and centers of gravity (CoG) were computed for the respective somatotopic representations. Furthermore, spatial reliability was tested by intersession overlap volumes (OV) and voxel-wise intraclass correlations (ICC).
Feasibility of fMRI was 100% for all body parts and sessions. In contrast, nTMS was feasible in all sessions and subjects only for the hand area, while mappings of the foot (90%), face (70%) and tongue representations (40%) remained incomplete in several subjects due to technical constraints and co-stimulation artifacts. On average, the mean ED of the hotspots was better for fMRI (6.2±1.1mm) compared to nTMS (10.8±1.9mm) while stability of CoG was similar for both methods. Peak voxel reliability (ICC) was high for both methods (>0.8), and there was no influence of inter-session intervals. In contrast, the reliability of mapping the spatial extent of the hand, foot, lips and tongue representations was poor to moderate for both fMRI and nTMS (OVs and ICC<50%). Especially nTMS mappings of the face and tongue areas yielded poor reliability estimates.
Both methods are highly reliable when mapping the core region of a given target muscle, especially for the hand representation area. In contrast, mapping the spatial extent of a cortical representation area was only little reliable for both nTMS and fMRI. In summary, fMRI was better suited when mapping motor representations of the head, while nTMS showed equal reliability for mapping the hand and foot representation areas. Hence, both methods may well complement each other.
[Display omitted]
► Test–retest reliability of M1 mapping by nTMS and fMRI compared in the same cohort ► Centers of gravity of nTMS and fMRI equally well reliable (5–8mm deviation) ► NTMS centers of gravity better reliable than nTMS hotspots ► Mapping the lips and the tongue area with nTMS hampered by direct stimulation effects ► Motor representations of the lips and tongue more reliable when mapped with fMRI</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-8119</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9572</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.046</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23116812</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Brain ; Brain Mapping - methods ; Cortex (motor) ; Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology ; Face - innervation ; Female ; Fingers & toes ; fMRI ; Foot - innervation ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Hand - innervation ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Intraclass correlation ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Methods ; Motor cortex ; Motor Cortex - anatomy & histology ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Reliability ; Studies ; Test–retest ; TMS ; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ; Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2013-02, Vol.66, p.531-542</ispartof><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Feb 1, 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-a6e866e0f1d22ee3f312cbcaad4c24c4e07647db34d2710136c460c827ded38a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-a6e866e0f1d22ee3f312cbcaad4c24c4e07647db34d2710136c460c827ded38a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191201049X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27110957$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23116812$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Carolin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nettekoven, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehme, Anne K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neuschmelting, Volker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenbeis, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldbrunner, Roland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grefkes, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI</title><title>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</title><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><description>Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a frequently used non-invasive mapping technique for investigating the human motor system. Recently, neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has been established as an alternative approach. We here compared the test–retest reliability of both mapping techniques with regard to the cortical representations of the hand, leg, face and tongue areas.
Ten healthy subjects were examined three times (intervals: 3–5days/21–35days) with fMRI and nTMS. Motor-evoked potentials were recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis, plantaris, mentalis and the tongue muscles. The same muscles were activated in an fMRI motor task. Euclidean distances (ED) between hotspots and centers of gravity (CoG) were computed for the respective somatotopic representations. Furthermore, spatial reliability was tested by intersession overlap volumes (OV) and voxel-wise intraclass correlations (ICC).
Feasibility of fMRI was 100% for all body parts and sessions. In contrast, nTMS was feasible in all sessions and subjects only for the hand area, while mappings of the foot (90%), face (70%) and tongue representations (40%) remained incomplete in several subjects due to technical constraints and co-stimulation artifacts. On average, the mean ED of the hotspots was better for fMRI (6.2±1.1mm) compared to nTMS (10.8±1.9mm) while stability of CoG was similar for both methods. Peak voxel reliability (ICC) was high for both methods (>0.8), and there was no influence of inter-session intervals. In contrast, the reliability of mapping the spatial extent of the hand, foot, lips and tongue representations was poor to moderate for both fMRI and nTMS (OVs and ICC<50%). Especially nTMS mappings of the face and tongue areas yielded poor reliability estimates.
Both methods are highly reliable when mapping the core region of a given target muscle, especially for the hand representation area. In contrast, mapping the spatial extent of a cortical representation area was only little reliable for both nTMS and fMRI. In summary, fMRI was better suited when mapping motor representations of the head, while nTMS showed equal reliability for mapping the hand and foot representation areas. Hence, both methods may well complement each other.
[Display omitted]
► Test–retest reliability of M1 mapping by nTMS and fMRI compared in the same cohort ► Centers of gravity of nTMS and fMRI equally well reliable (5–8mm deviation) ► NTMS centers of gravity better reliable than nTMS hotspots ► Mapping the lips and the tongue area with nTMS hampered by direct stimulation effects ► Motor representations of the lips and tongue more reliable when mapped with fMRI</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain Mapping - methods</subject><subject>Cortex (motor)</subject><subject>Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology</subject><subject>Face - innervation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fingers & toes</subject><subject>fMRI</subject><subject>Foot - innervation</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Hand - innervation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Intraclass correlation</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Motor cortex</subject><subject>Motor Cortex - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Test–retest</subject><subject>TMS</subject><subject>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation</subject><subject>Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1053-8119</issn><issn>1095-9572</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks9u1DAQxiMEoqXwCsgSQuJAFo-dOMkRKv5U6gqplLPltSdbr7J2sJ0VvfUJeuIJeRKc7kIlLj155PnNzOf5XBQE6AIoiHebhcMpeLtVa1wwCixfL2glHhXHQLu67OqGPZ7jmpctQHdUPItxQyntoGqfFkeMA4gW2HFxu1TjaN2apCskV8qZt6T3PpEckV5pJAHHgBFdUsl6F4l1d-gY8vBwTbY--UC0Dwl_kt83v8gFJowplw1Wrexg0zXxPbmT69TOrlVCQy6X38gOQ5wi6Sen585qIMuLs-fFk14NEV8czpPi-6ePl6dfyvOvn89O35-XuuaQSiWwFQJpD4YxRN5zYHqllTKVZpWukDaiasyKV4Y1eWNc6EpQ3bLGoOGt4ifFm33fMfgfUxYstzZqHAbl0E9RggDeVR2I7mG0pnla9qDJ6Kv_0I2fQn7aTNWMMlZ3babaPaWDjzFgLw_LlEDlbK_cyHt75WzvnMn25tKXhwHTaovmX-FfPzPw-gCoqNXQB-W0jfdcA_P_mJV-2HOYl7yzGGTUFp1GYwPqJI23D6v5A1lOylM</recordid><startdate>20130201</startdate><enddate>20130201</enddate><creator>Weiss, Carolin</creator><creator>Nettekoven, Charlotte</creator><creator>Rehme, Anne K.</creator><creator>Neuschmelting, Volker</creator><creator>Eisenbeis, Andrea</creator><creator>Goldbrunner, Roland</creator><creator>Grefkes, Christian</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130201</creationdate><title>Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI</title><author>Weiss, Carolin ; Nettekoven, Charlotte ; Rehme, Anne K. ; Neuschmelting, Volker ; Eisenbeis, Andrea ; Goldbrunner, Roland ; Grefkes, Christian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c531t-a6e866e0f1d22ee3f312cbcaad4c24c4e07647db34d2710136c460c827ded38a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain Mapping - methods</topic><topic>Cortex (motor)</topic><topic>Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology</topic><topic>Face - innervation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fingers & toes</topic><topic>fMRI</topic><topic>Foot - innervation</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Hand - innervation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Intraclass correlation</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Motor cortex</topic><topic>Motor Cortex - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Test–retest</topic><topic>TMS</topic><topic>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation</topic><topic>Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Carolin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nettekoven, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehme, Anne K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neuschmelting, Volker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenbeis, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldbrunner, Roland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grefkes, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weiss, Carolin</au><au>Nettekoven, Charlotte</au><au>Rehme, Anne K.</au><au>Neuschmelting, Volker</au><au>Eisenbeis, Andrea</au><au>Goldbrunner, Roland</au><au>Grefkes, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI</atitle><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><date>2013-02-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>66</volume><spage>531</spage><epage>542</epage><pages>531-542</pages><issn>1053-8119</issn><eissn>1095-9572</eissn><abstract>Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a frequently used non-invasive mapping technique for investigating the human motor system. Recently, neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has been established as an alternative approach. We here compared the test–retest reliability of both mapping techniques with regard to the cortical representations of the hand, leg, face and tongue areas.
Ten healthy subjects were examined three times (intervals: 3–5days/21–35days) with fMRI and nTMS. Motor-evoked potentials were recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis, plantaris, mentalis and the tongue muscles. The same muscles were activated in an fMRI motor task. Euclidean distances (ED) between hotspots and centers of gravity (CoG) were computed for the respective somatotopic representations. Furthermore, spatial reliability was tested by intersession overlap volumes (OV) and voxel-wise intraclass correlations (ICC).
Feasibility of fMRI was 100% for all body parts and sessions. In contrast, nTMS was feasible in all sessions and subjects only for the hand area, while mappings of the foot (90%), face (70%) and tongue representations (40%) remained incomplete in several subjects due to technical constraints and co-stimulation artifacts. On average, the mean ED of the hotspots was better for fMRI (6.2±1.1mm) compared to nTMS (10.8±1.9mm) while stability of CoG was similar for both methods. Peak voxel reliability (ICC) was high for both methods (>0.8), and there was no influence of inter-session intervals. In contrast, the reliability of mapping the spatial extent of the hand, foot, lips and tongue representations was poor to moderate for both fMRI and nTMS (OVs and ICC<50%). Especially nTMS mappings of the face and tongue areas yielded poor reliability estimates.
Both methods are highly reliable when mapping the core region of a given target muscle, especially for the hand representation area. In contrast, mapping the spatial extent of a cortical representation area was only little reliable for both nTMS and fMRI. In summary, fMRI was better suited when mapping motor representations of the head, while nTMS showed equal reliability for mapping the hand and foot representation areas. Hence, both methods may well complement each other.
[Display omitted]
► Test–retest reliability of M1 mapping by nTMS and fMRI compared in the same cohort ► Centers of gravity of nTMS and fMRI equally well reliable (5–8mm deviation) ► NTMS centers of gravity better reliable than nTMS hotspots ► Mapping the lips and the tongue area with nTMS hampered by direct stimulation effects ► Motor representations of the lips and tongue more reliable when mapped with fMRI</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23116812</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.046</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1053-8119 |
| ispartof | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2013-02, Vol.66, p.531-542 |
| issn | 1053-8119 1095-9572 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1613949169 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Brain Brain Mapping - methods Cortex (motor) Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology Face - innervation Female Fingers & toes fMRI Foot - innervation Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Hand - innervation Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted Intraclass correlation Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Methods Motor cortex Motor Cortex - anatomy & histology NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance Reliability Studies Test–retest TMS Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs Young Adult |
| title | Mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex — Retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T14%3A12%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mapping%20the%20hand,%20foot%20and%20face%20representations%20in%20the%20primary%20motor%20cortex%20%E2%80%94%20Retest%20reliability%20of%20neuronavigated%20TMS%20versus%20functional%20MRI&rft.jtitle=NeuroImage%20(Orlando,%20Fla.)&rft.au=Weiss,%20Carolin&rft.date=2013-02-01&rft.volume=66&rft.spage=531&rft.epage=542&rft.pages=531-542&rft.issn=1053-8119&rft.eissn=1095-9572&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.046&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3396571411%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1552022598&rft_id=info:pmid/23116812&rft_els_id=S105381191201049X&rfr_iscdi=true |