Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40928607›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025

Achieving greater accuracy in transcranial magnetic stimulation corticospinal evaluation and motor mapping by improving motor evoked potential recording: an emerging issue.

Marco Antonio Cavalcanti Garcia, Ana Carolina Borges Valente, Victor Hugo Moraes, Daniela Morales, Lucas Dos Santos Betioli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marco Antonio Cavalcanti GarciaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Reabilitação e Desempenho Físico Funcional, Faculdade de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil. marco.garcia@ufjf.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8225-6573
Ana Carolina Borges ValentePrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Reabilitação e Desempenho Físico Funcional, Faculdade de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1657-8627
Victor Hugo MoraesLaboratório de Neurobiologia do Movimento do Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5395-9061
Daniela MoralesHospital Universitário - Unidade Dom Bosco, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-8010-6135
Lucas Dos Santos BetioliLaboratório de Biomagnetismo, Departamento de Física, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7282-9088

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico grant # 131294/2023-7Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior Finance Code 001Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais grant # APQ-01867-21Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo grant # 2013/07699-0Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo grant # 2025/07274-6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate evaluation of corticospinal excitability and motor mapping via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) relies heavily on motor evoked potential (MEP) recordings. However, a consensus on optimal surface electrode configurations is lacking. This pilot study investigated the impact of electrode montages on the accuracy of MEP recordings. MEPs were recorded in a healthy male subject (43 years old) using a 64-channel electrode array placed over the right brachioradialis (BR) and biceps brachii (BB) muscles. Two montages—bipolar and pseudomopolar—were simulated to assess differences in MEP peak-to-peak values (MEPP−P). For the BR muscle, MEPP−P were ~ 175 µV (bipolar) and 200 µV (pseudomonopolar), presenting a modest difference. In contrast, the BB muscle presented ~ 40 µV (bipolar) and 200 µV (pseudomonopolar), resulting in a five-fold difference between the two surface electrode montages. The present findings suggest a pivotal role for surface electrode montage in optimizing MEP signal acquisition. Given that the MEP is the key parameter in determining the motor threshold, which in turn serves as a reference for both diagnostic purposes and defining repetitive TMS dosing, there is an imperative need to standardize surface electromyography-based recording protocols.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorPyramidal TractsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultElectrodesElectromyographyHumansMaleMotor CortexMuscle, SkeletalPilot ProjectsMotor cortex stimulationMotor evoked potentialMotor mappingSurface electrode montageSurface electromyography

Identifiers

PMID40928607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.