This protocol describes the process for performing a neurophysiological assessment of the lower extremity muscles, tibialis anterior and soleus, in a standing position using TMS in people post-stroke. This position provides a greater probability of eliciting a post-stroke TMS response and allows for the use of reduced stimulator power during neurophysiological assessments.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a common tool used to measure the behavior of motor circuits in healthy and neurologically impaired populations. TMS is used extensively to study motor control and the response to neurorehabilitation of the upper extremities. However, TMS has been less utilized in the study of lower extremity postural and walking-specific motor control. The limited use and the additional methodological challenges of lower extremity TMS assessments have contributed to the lack of consistency in lower extremity TMS procedures within the literature. Inspired by the decreased ability to record lower extremity TMS motor evoked potentials (MEP), this methodological report details steps to enable post-stroke TMS assessments in a standing posture. The standing posture allows for the activation of the neuromuscular system, reflecting a state more akin to the system’s state during postural and walking tasks. Using dual-top force plates, we instructed participants to equally distribute their weight between their paretic and non-paretic legs. Visual feedback of the participants’ weight distribution was provided. Using image guidance software, we delivered single TMS pulses via a double-cone coil to the participants’ lesioned and non-lesioned hemispheres and measured the corticomotor response of the paretic and non-paretic tibialis anterior and soleus muscles. Performing assessments in the standing position increased the TMS response rate and allowed for the use of the lower stimulation intensities compared to the standard sitting/resting position. Utilization of this TMS protocol can provide a common approach to assess the lower extremity corticomotor response post-stroke when the neurorehabilitation of postural and gait impairments are of interest.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an instrument used to measure the behavior of neural circuits. The majority of TMS investigations focusing on the study of motor control/performance have been conducted in the upper extremities. The imbalance between the upper and lower extremity studies is in part due to the additional challenges in measuring the lower extremity corticomotor response (CMR). Some of these methodological obstacles include the smaller cortical representations of the lower extremity muscles within the motor cortex and the deeper location of the representations relative to the scalp1. In populations with neurological injury, additional hurdles are also present. For example, approximately half of the individuals post-stroke show no response to TMS at rest in lower extremity muscles2,3. The lack of post-stroke response to TMS is even seen when patients maintain some volitional control of the muscles, indicating at least a partially intact corticospinal tract.
The lack of measurable TMS responses with maintained motor function contributes to our decreased understanding of post-stroke postural and walking-specific motor control and the neurophysiological effects of neurorehabilitation. However, some of the challenges of lower extremity post-stroke neurophysiological assessments have been overcome. For example, a double-cone coil can be used to reliably activate the lower extremity motoneurons located deep in the interhemispheric fissure1. The double-cone coil produces a larger and stronger magnetic field that penetrates deeper into the brain than the more commonly used figure-of-eight coil4. Another methodological change that can be implemented to increase the responsiveness to TMS is measuring the CMR during a slight voluntary contraction5. Generally, this contraction is performed at a predetermined level of either maximal voluntary joint torque or maximal electromyographic (EMG) muscle activity. Peripheral nerve stimulation can also be used to elicit a maximal muscle response and the recorded EMG of this response can be used to set the targeted voluntary activation of the muscle.
Performing TMS assessment post-stroke during active muscle contraction is fairly common in the upper extremities where isometric tasks can mimic functional activities, for example, grasping/holding objects. In contrast, walking is accomplished through the bilateral activation of multiple muscle groups via cortical, subcortical, and spinal cord structures and requires postural muscle activation to resist the effects of gravity. This activation state is likely not reflected when measuring isolated muscles producing an isometric contraction. Several previous studies directed at understanding postural and walking-specific motor control have delivered TMS pulses while participants were walking6,7,8 and standing9,10,11,12,13,14,15. The measurement of the CMR in the upright position allows for the activation of postural muscles and subcortical components of the postural and gait motor-control networks. To date, there have not been any reports of performing standing TMS assessments in individuals post-stroke.
This study proposes a standardized methodology, built upon the existing body of literature of standing TMS methods6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, for standing TMS assessment of the CMR post-stroke. This methodology can be utilized by research groups studying, but not limited to, postural deficits and walking-specific motor control post-stroke and establish greater consistency of TMS procedures. The purpose of this methodological investigation was to determine whether standing TMS assessments are feasible in individuals post-stroke with moderate gait impairments. We hypothesized that performing assessments in the standing position would 1) increase the likelihood of eliciting a measurable response (motor evoked potential, MEP) and 2) that the stimulator power/intensity used to perform standing TMS assessments would be lower than that of the usually performed sitting/resting assessments. We believe the successful completion and widespread use of this protocol may lead to a greater understanding of the neurophysiological aspects of post-stroke postural and walking-specific motor control and the effects of neurorehabilitation.
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Medical University of South Carolina and conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki.
1. Participant recruitment
Study ID | Age | Months post Stroke |
Sex | Race | Type of Stroke | Stroke Hemisphere |
Height (cm) |
Weight (kg) |
Self-Selected Walking Speed (m/s) | Walking Aid |
||
1 | 67 | 28.7 | M | C | Intracerebral Hemorrhage | Right | 180 | 74.8 | 0.61 | None | ||
2 | 84 | 55.8 | F | C | Ischemic | Right | 165 | 68.0 | 0.94 | None | ||
3 | 56 | 262.7 | F | C | Subarachnoid Hemorrhage | Left | 152 | 59.0 | 1.29 | None | ||
4 | 67 | 141.8 | M | C | Intracerebral Hemorrhage | Right | 180 | 72.6 | 0.27 | Cane / AFO | ||
6 | 48 | 21.6 | M | C | Intracerebral Hemorrhage | Right | 170 | 61.2 | 0.83 | None | ||
7 | 58 | 93.9 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Left | 168 | 112.5 | 0.77 | Quad Cane / AFO | ||
8 | 71 | 55.3 | F | AA | Acute Ischemic | Left | 170 | 68.0 | 1.05 | None | ||
9* | 65 | 23.7 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Right | 178 | 84.8 | – | Knee Brace | ||
10 | 70 | 26.6 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Left | 173 | 78.9 | 0.81 | None | ||
12 | 70 | 10.0 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Left | 170 | 86.2 | 1.11 | None | ||
13 | 65 | 80.6 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Right | 185 | 139.7 | 0.93 | Cane / Crutch | ||
14 | 79 | 83.0 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Right | 175 | 88.5 | 0.48 | Cane | ||
15 | 51 | 54.4 | M | AA | Acute Ischemic | Left | 178 | 90.7 | 1.35 | None | ||
17 | 65 | 18.5 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Right | 170 | 74.8 | 0.28 | Cane | ||
18 | 63 | 48.8 | F | AA | Acute Ischemic | Right | 170 | 83.9 | 1.12 | None | ||
19 | 58 | 25.9 | M | C | Acute Ischemic | Both | 183 | 88.5 | 1.10 | None | ||
* Participant removed from data analysis due to inability to complete required assessments | ||||||||||||
AFO = ankle foot orthortic |
Table 1: Participant demographics.
2. Image guidance system and participant setup
3. Surface electromyography preparation and setup
4. Force plate and participant safety setup
Figure 1: Representative image of the visual feedback provided to participants during the standing TMS assessment. (A) displays the visual feedback given to participants while they were standing with their weight equally distributed between the paretic and non-paretic legs. The vertical bars represent the amount of force measured by each of the areas of the force plate. The solid horizontal lines represent the range of vertical force measured to ensure loading of body weight on the lower extremities and not through the arms if participants needed to steady themselves with the provided hand support. If the participant's body weight was shifted to one side more than 5%, the vertical bars changed colors to inform the participant to lean toward the side that was unloaded, as shown in (B). If the participant loaded/unloaded more than +/- 5% of their body weight off their legs, the background screen color would change as shown in (C). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
5. Standing corticomotor response assessment
Figure 2: Image taken during the measurement of the corticomotor response (CMR) in the standing position. The image guidance system and the collected sEMG activity are displayed to research personnel during data collection as shown on the monitors located on the left side of the image. Visual feedback of the weight distribution was provided in front and slightly to the right of the participants. Participants wore a safety harness which was attached to the ceiling to prevent falls while standing on the dual-top force plate. Support for the participants' arms was provided to help participants steady themselves after TMS pulses were applied. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
6. Sitting corticomotor response assessment
7. Statistical approach
One participant was removed from the analysis due to the inability to tolerate the standing TMS procedure due to preexisting knee pain and a diabetic wound received before their arrival to the research laboratory, leaving a final sample size of 15. The diabetic wound was directly over the TA and precluded any sEMG measures of this muscle. There were no major adverse events reported to the investigators during either the sitting or standing TMS procedures. Several minor adverse events were reported, such as neck muscle pain and slight headaches. However, these minor events were reported at the end of the testing session, and it was not clear whether the sitting or standing procedures were more responsible for these side-effects. These minor adverse events are commonly seen after TMS evaluations and within the TMS literature22.
Total loading/unloading of body weight during TMS pulse application was +0.4% (SD 1.8%) of body weight. This signifies that the participants did not unload body weight from their legs to their arms when using the rollator as a means to support themselves during the TMS procedures. The average weight distribution of the participants' left leg was 50% (SD 6%). We attempted to measure motor thresholds in four separate muscles (paretic and non-paretic, TA and SOL), leading to a total of 60 motor thresholds in both the standing and sitting positions. In the standing position, we were able to elicit and measure a motor threshold 90.0% of the time compared to 65.0% in the sitting position. Within a single session, it was more likely that assessing the motor threshold in the standing position would result in a measurable response (McNemar Chi2, Yates correction, χ = 8.48, P = 0.004) (Table 2). This agrees with our first hypothesis that the standing position would result in an increased likelihood of evoking measurable responses. Our second hypothesis was that standing would result in motor thresholds requiring lower stimulator power. Our results show that when individuals presented with measurable motor thresholds in the sitting and standing positions, the measured thresholds in the standing position were lower (N = 38, Standing MT 45% MSO SD 9, Sitting MT 53% MSO SD 11, Paired t-statistic 4.99, P < 0.001). Figure 3 displays the measured motor thresholds for each muscle and condition for all participants.
Sitting Response |
Standing Response | ||||
Yes | No | Total | % | ||
Yes | 38 | 1 | 39 | 65 | |
No | 16 | 5 | 21 | 35 | |
Total | 54 | 6 | 60 | ||
% | 90 | 10 | 100 |
Table 2: The constructed 2 x 2 table shows the reported ability to successfully produce a response to TMS and the ability to measure a motor threshold in the sitting and standing conditions. The McNemar's test was used to compare the probability of eliciting a measurable response and it was found that the standing assessments were significantly more likely to evoke a measurable response compared to performing evaluations in a sitting position.
Figure 3: Measured motor thresholds in the muscles of interest. Lines connecting the left and right values indicate the individual had measurable motor thresholds for that muscle in both the sitting and standing positions. Motor thresholds are measured and reported as a percentage of maximal stimulator output (%MSO). (A,B) show motor thresholds measured in the paretic and non-paretic tibialis anterior muscles, respectively. (C, D) show the motor thresholds of the paretic and non-paretic soleus muscles, respectively. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The experimental protocol was well tolerated by most participants. One individual was unable to complete the standing TMS evaluation due to preexisting decubitus ulcers secondary to diabetic complications and orthopedic issues involving preexisting knee pain. The amount of loading/unloading of body weight from the legs was minimal. However, there was, on average, a slightly greater downward force measured during the application of the TMS pulses. This is likely due to the weight of the coil and the downward pressure applied by the investigators to ensure there was sufficient contact between the scalp/head and the TMS coil. The minimal changes in body weight captured during the TMS procedures compared to the static trials suggest that no significant effects of bodyweight loading or unloading contributed to our results. We also examined the weight distribution between the legs and found it to be symmetrical, with an average of 50% of the participants’ weight supported by their left legs. It is expected that post-stroke individuals who can stand for 10 min with little to no support can complete the described standing TMS assessments. The standing position allowed for a greater response rate to TMS compared to the resting/sitting position. The increase in TMS responsiveness in the standing position may allow individuals who were previously disqualified from neurophysiological studies due to lack of measurable TMS response to qualify for future studies investigating postural and walking-specific post-stroke motor control. Increasing the pool of eligible participants can lead to greater generalizability of research findings across the post-stroke population.
Motor thresholds assessed in the standing position were measured at a lower %MSO. Post-stroke motor thresholds are often increased23 and require stimulation at a high %MSO to measure the CMR. Applying high-power TMS pulses with a double-cone coil can lead to increased facial and upper extremity muscle contractions that can be uncomfortable for research participants. Performing neurophysiological evaluations at a lower intensity may increase the tolerability of TMS procedures in some post-stroke participants and increase participation in these types of studies.
This methodology describes the process for measuring the corticomotor response to single-pulse TMS. However, paired-pulse paradigms can also be collected in the standing position. Short-latency intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) use two TMS pulses delivered by the same coil with interstimulus intervals of 2 and 10 ms, respectively24. These intracortical measures can provide additional details on the neurophysiological state/behavior of the nervous system during standing compared to motor thresholds alone.
As with all scientific methods, there are limitations to the current protocol. An important item to consider is that individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis do not perform activities in the same manner as neurologically intact groups. People in the chronic phase post-stroke have usually developed compensatory strategies to perform physical tasks25,26, which extends into maintaining an upright posture. Even with equal/symmetrical weight-bearing between the paretic and non-paretic limbs, post-stroke participants may not be in a symmetrical upright posture. Standardizing foot positions on the force plate may help curb this limitation. Another limitation is that recent investigations have suggested recording more than 10 motor-evoked potentials27, due to the known variability in the CMR. In this investigation, we chose to record only 10 test pulses to reduce participant burden while standing. As mentioned previously, this protocol was well-tolerated/performed by individuals who have the ability to stand independently for at least 10 min. This fact may limit the use of this protocol in high/severe disability levels post-stroke or in individuals with orthopedic limitations.
Neurophysiological assessment methods of the lower extremities, and especially in neurologically impaired populations, have yet to receive much consistency within the literature. When posture and walking-specific impairments and/or lower extremity rehabilitation are the primary focus, there is no consensus on the best method to use. For instance, comparisons between resting, active, and standing measures and how these measures relate to clinical disability have not been fully investigated. Most researchers would agree that the double-cone coil is the most appropriate device to use to stimulate the lower extremity cortical representations. Outside of this parameter, much of the lower extremity TMS studies are done to individual research groups’ standards. The lack of consistency between research groups increases the difficulty in performing larger meta-analytical assessments needed to extend the generalizability of research findings. In this protocol, we provide a basis for lower extremity TMS procedures that can be used in studies investigating postural and walking-specific motor control and neurorehabilitation post-stroke.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Brian Cence and Mrs. Alyssa Chestnut for their contributions to participant recruitment and data collection.
Funding for this project was provided in part by a Technical Development Award from the NIH National Center for Neuromodulation for Rehabilitation (NM4R) (HD086844) and by Veteran's Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Career Development Award 1 (RX003126) and Merit award (RX002665).
The contents of this report do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. National Institutes of Health, or the United States Government.
Data Acquisition Software | MathWorks | MatLab | The custom data collection program was written in Matlab. However, other software/hardware providers can be used (e.g. National Instruments, AD Instruments, CED Spike2 or Signal) |
Double-cone coil | Magstim | D110 | Double-cone coil for TMS pulse delivery |
Dual force plate | Advanced Mechanical Technology Inc (AMTI) | Dual-top Accusway | Force plate used to measure force/weight distrobution under each leg independently. |
Dual-pulse TMS | Magstim | Bistim 200 | Connects two Magstim 200 units together for dual-pulse applications |
EMG pre-amplifiers | Motion Labs Inc | MA-422 | Preamplifiers for disposable surface EMG electrodes |
EMG system | Motion Labs Inc | MA400 | EMG system for data collection |
Neuronavigation System | Rogue Research | Brainsight | Software and hardware used to ensure consistent placement/delivery of magnetic stimulations. Marking the stimulation location on a participant's head or on a place showercap can also be used in the absence of neuronavigational software. |
Recruitment Database | N/A | N/A | Electronic database including names of possible individuals who are eligble for your studies. |
TMS unit (x2) | Magstim | Magstim 200 | Delivers TMS pulses |