• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >A comparison of the observation of movement method and electromyography method of determining motor threshold in transcranial magnetic stimulation.
【24h】

A comparison of the observation of movement method and electromyography method of determining motor threshold in transcranial magnetic stimulation.

机译：确定经颅磁刺激运动阈值的运动方法和肌电图方法的观察结果比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Clinicians are using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a noninvasive tool to treat depression; however, standards for determining the motor threshold (MT), which often determines the final location of the TMS coil and the intensity of simulation for the depression treatment, are not clear. This study compared the observation of movement (OM) method and electromyography (EMG) method of determining motor threshold in a group of experienced TMS administrators and nurses with no previous MT knowledge. We hypothesized that between methods and groups the MT estimates would vary by ≤ 5% of stimulator output and the ideal motor scalp location between methods would vary by ≤ 1 cm.;TMS administrators determined the MT twice with each MT method on one subject in a randomly assigned order. The subject and administrators were blind to TMS machine output. After determining the ideal motor scalp location, each TMS administrator then used the 5 cm rule to locate the optimal prefrontal treatment site. The scalp position over the anatomical hand knob and the EEG F3 position were located for comparison.;There was no significant difference in the motor threshold estimates between the OM and EMG MT methods (t(14)=0.659, p=0.521). The mean EMG and OM MT estimates were (61.8% (sd=7.25) and 63.1% (sd=9.05). There was no effect for the interaction between estimation method and experience level (F(1,13)=0.036, p=0.851) on MT estimates. The mean distance between the MT sites and the hand knob was 21.25 (sd=8.98), while the mean distance between the treatment sites and F3 was 36.16 (sd=12.15).;The wide range of MT estimates and motor scalp locations reveals several problems with the MT procedure for the OM and EMG methods. The standard EMG or OM methods along with the 5 cm rule may position the coil posterior and medial to the intended treatment location.;This study shows that nurses with minimal MT training can determine the MT and localize the treatment site as effectively as experienced TMS operators. Information obtained from this study can be used to establish MT protocols and to institute training programs that test each participant's ability to master the TMS procedure.
机译：临床医生正在使用经颅磁刺激（TMS）作为治疗抑郁症的非侵入性工具。但是，用于确定电机阈值（MT）的标准尚不清楚，该标准通常确定TMS线圈的最终位置以及进行凹陷处理的模拟强度。这项研究在一组经验丰富的TMS管理员和没有MT知识的护士中比较了运动观察（OM）方法和肌电图（EMG）方法来确定运动阈值。我们假设在方法和组之间，MT估计值的变化范围为刺激器输出的≤5％，并且方法之间的理想运动头皮位置的变化范围为≤1 cm。; TMS管理员对每种受试者的每种MT方法都两次确定了MT。随机分配的订单。主题和管理员对TMS机器的输出视而不见。确定理想的运动头皮位置后，每个TMS管理员然后使用5 cm规则确定最佳的前额叶治疗部位。放置在解剖手柄上的头皮位置和EEG F3位置进行比较; OM和EMG MT方法之间的运动阈值估计值没有显着差异（t（14）= 0.659，p = 0.521）。 EMG和OM MT的平均估计值分别为（61.8％（sd = 7.25）和63.1％（sd = 9.05）。估计方法和经验水平之间的交互没有影响（F（1,13）= 0.036，p = MT估计值的平均值为0.851）。MT部位与手柄之间的平均距离为21.25（sd = 8.98），而治疗部位与F3之间的平均距离为36.16（sd = 12.15）。运动头皮的位置揭示了OM和EMG方法的MT程序存在的一些问题，标准的EMG或OM方法以及5 cm的规则可能会将线圈的后部和内侧定位在预期的治疗位置。最少的MT培训可以像经验丰富的TMS操作员一样有效地确定MT并定位治疗部位，从本研究中获得的信息可用于建立MT协议并建立培训计划，以测试每个参与者掌握TMS程序的能力。

著录项

  • 作者

    Anderson, Berry Stephen.;

  • 作者单位

    Medical University of South Carolina.;

  • 授予单位 Medical University of South Carolina.;
  • 学科 Biology Neuroscience.;Health Sciences Mental Health.;Health Sciences Nursing.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 87 p.
  • 总页数 87
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号