FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
BMC veterinary research2018; 14(1); 121; doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1447-7

Multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation (TES): normative data for motor evoked potentials in healthy horses.

Abstract: There are indications that transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) assesses the motor function of the spinal cord in horses in a more sensitive and reproducible fashion than transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, no normative data of TES evoked motor potentials (MEP) is available. Results: In this prospective study normative data of TES induced MEP wave characteristics (motor latency times (MLT); amplitude and waveform) was obtained from the extensor carpi radialis (ECR) and tibial cranialis (TC) muscles in a group of healthy horses to create a reference frame for functional diagnostic purposes. For the 12 horses involved in the study 95% confidence intervals for MLTs were 16.1-22.6 ms and 31.9-41.1 ms for ECR and TC muscles respectively. Intra-individual coefficients of variation (CV) and mean of MLTs were: ECR: 2.2-8,2% and 4.5% and TC: 1.4-6.3% and 3.5% respectively. Inter-individual CVs for MLTs were higher, though below 10% on all occasions. The mean ± sd of MEP amplitudes was respectively 3.61 ± 2.55 mV (ECR muscle left) and 4.53 ± 3.1 mV (right) and 2.66 ± 2.22 mV (TC muscle left) and 2.55 ± 1.85 mV (right). MLTs showed no significant left versus right differences. All MLTs showed significant (p < 0.05) voltage dependent decreases with slope coefficients of linear regression for ECR: - 0.049; - 0.061 ms/V and TC: - 0.082; - 0.089 ms/V (left; right). There was a positive correlation found between height at withers and MLTs in all 4 muscle groups. Finally, reliable assessment of MEP characteristics was for all muscle groups restricted to a transcranial time window of approximately 15-19 ms. Conclusions: TES is a novel and sensitive technique to assess spinal motor function in horses. It is easy applicable and highly reproducible. This study provides normative data in healthy horses on TES induced MEPs in the extensor carpi radialis and tibialis cranialis muscles bilaterally. No significant differences between MLTs of the left and right side could be demonstrated. A significant effect of stimulation voltage on MLTs was found. No significant effect of height at the withers could be found based upon the results of the current study. A study in which both TMS and TES are applied on the same group of horses is needed.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-04-03 PubMed ID: 29615034PubMed Central: PMC5883272DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1447-7Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research paper examines the use and effectiveness of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in assessing spinal motor function in horses and provides normative data for motor evoked potentials.

Research Background and Methodology

  • The paper focusses on an in-depth study of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (TES), highlighted as a more efficient option to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) which was used earlier for assessing the motor functionality of the spinal cord in horses.
  • A group of healthy horses were subject to TES so as to study its effects and gather standard measure of motor evoked potentials (MEPs).
  • Two specific muscles, the extensor carpi radialis (ECR) and tibial cranialis (TC), were the focal point of this study.

Findings

  • TES-induced MEP wave characteristics were successfully captured from both ECR and TC muscles. These included significant parameters such as motor latency times (MLTs), amplitude, and waveforms.
  • The study delivered 95% confidence intervals for MLTs in both ECR (16.1-22.6ms) and TC (31.9-41.1ms) muscles.
  • Overall, the variation within individuals (Intra-individual CV) and across different horses (Inter-individual CV) for MLTs were found to be less than 10% in all instances.
  • No significant difference was observed in MLTs on either side, right or left.
  • The study discovered that MLTs showed significant decrease as the voltage increased
  • A positive correlation was established between the horse’s height at withers and MLTs in all four muscle groups being studied.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • Based on the results from their study, the researchers deemed TES a sensitive, simple to apply, and highly reproducible method of assessing spinal motor function in horses.
  • The study further established that any reliable assessment of MEP characteristics within the horses needed to be done within a transcranial time window of 15-19 ms.
  • The paper ended by calling for further studies where both TMS and TES are applied on the same group of horses to establish the superiority and increased efficiency of using TES for assessing spinal motor functions.

Cite This Article

APA
Journée SL, Journée HL, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. (2018). Multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation (TES): normative data for motor evoked potentials in healthy horses. BMC Vet Res, 14(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1447-7

Publication

BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
NlmUniqueID: 101249759
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 1
Pages: 121
PII: 121

Researcher Affiliations

Journée, Sanne Lotte
  • Equine Diagnostics, Tergracht 2A, 9091 BG, Wijns, The Netherlands.
Journée, Henricus Louis
  • Department of Neurosurgery, University Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. hljournee@gmail.com.
de Bruijn, Cornelis Marinus
  • Wolvega Equine Clinic, Stellingenweg 10, 8474 EA, Oldeholtpade, The Netherlands.
Delesalle, Cathérine John Ghislaine
  • Department of Comparative Physiology and Biometrics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Brain / physiology
  • Evoked Potentials, Motor / physiology
  • Female
  • Horses / physiology
  • Male
  • Reference Values
  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation / methods
  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation / veterinary

Conflict of Interest Statement

ETHICS APPROVAL: The study was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of University of Groningen, The Netherlands under the ethical committee reference DEC6440A, including signed Informed consent from the horse owners. CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION: Not applicable for this study. COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

This article includes 32 references
  1. Mayhew IG, Washbourne JR. Magnetic motor evoked potentials in ponies.. J Vet Intern Med 1996 Sep-Oct;10(5):326-9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.1996.tb02071.xpubmed: 8884720google scholar: lookup
  2. Nollet H, Van Ham L, Dewulf J, Vanderstraeten G, Deprez P. Standardization of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the horse.. Vet J 2003 Nov;166(3):244-50.
    doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(03)00024-8pubmed: 14550735google scholar: lookup
  3. Nollet H, Deprez P, van Ham L, Dewulf J, Decleir A, Vanderstraeten G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: normal values of magnetic motor evoked potentials in 84 normal horses and influence of height, weight, age and sex.. Equine Vet J 2004 Jan;36(1):51-7.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044864660pubmed: 14756372google scholar: lookup
  4. Nollet H, Deprez P, Van Ham L, Verschooten F, Vanderstraeten G. The use of magnetic motor evoked potentials in horses with cervical spinal cord disease.. Equine Vet J 2002 Mar;34(2):156-63.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776767204pubmed: 11902758google scholar: lookup
  5. Amassian VE, Quirk GJ, Stewart M. A comparison of corticospinal activation by magnetic coil and electrical stimulation of monkey motor cortex.. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990 Sep-Oct;77(5):390-401.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(90)90061-Hpubmed: 1697531google scholar: lookup
  6. Houlden DA, Schwartz ML, Tator CH, Ashby P, MacKay WA. Spinal cord-evoked potentials and muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation in 10 awake human subjects.. J Neurosci 1999 Mar 1;19(5):1855-62.
    doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-05-01855.1999pmc: PMC6782161pubmed: 10024369google scholar: lookup
  7. Journée SL, Journée HL, de Bruijn CM, CJG D. Design and optimization of a novel method for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord by multipulse Transcranial electrical stimulation in horses. J Equine Vet Sci 2015;35:793–800.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.07.014google scholar: lookup
  8. Merton PA, Morton HB. Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject.. Nature 1980 May 22;285(5762):227.
    doi: 10.1038/285227a0pubmed: 7374773google scholar: lookup
  9. Ubags LH, Kalkman CJ, Been HD, Koelman JH, Ongerboer de Visser BW. A comparison of myogenic motor evoked responses to electrical and magnetic transcranial stimulation during nitrous oxide/opioid anesthesia.. Anesth Analg 1999 Mar;88(3):568-72.
    doi: 10.1213/00000539-199903000-00019pubmed: 10072007google scholar: lookup
  10. Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Day BL, Dick JP, Kachi T, Cowan JM, Marsden CD. Motor cortex stimulation in intact man. 1. General characteristics of EMG responses in different muscles.. Brain 1987 Oct;110 ( Pt 5):1173-90.
    doi: 10.1093/brain/110.5.1173pubmed: 3676697google scholar: lookup
  11. Amassian VE, Stewart M, Quirk GJ, Rosenthal JL. Physiological basis of motor effects of a transient stimulus to cerebral cortex.. Neurosurgery 1987 Jan;20(1):74-93.
    pubmed: 3543727
  12. Amassian VE, Cracco RQ. Human cerebral cortical responses to contralateral transcranial stimulation.. Neurosurgery 1987 Jan;20(1):148-55.
    pubmed: 3808256
  13. Deletis V. Intraoperative monitoring of the functional integrity of the motor pathways.. Adv Neurol 1993;63:201-14.
    pubmed: 8279305
  14. Li DL, Journee HL, van Hulzen A, Rath WT, Sclabassi RJ, Sun M. Computer simulation of corticospinal activity during Transcranial Electrical Stimulation in neurosurgery.. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007;125:292-7.
    pubmed: 17377288
  15. Merton PA, Hill DK, Morton HB, Marsden CD. Scope of a technique for electrical stimulation of human brain, spinal cord, and muscle.. Lancet 1982 Sep 11;2(8298):597-600.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(82)90670-5pubmed: 6125739google scholar: lookup
  16. Edgley SA, Eyre JA, Lemon RN, Miller S. Excitation of the corticospinal tract by electromagnetic and electrical stimulation of the scalp in the macaque monkey.. J Physiol 1990 Jun;425:301-20.
    doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1990.sp018104pmc: PMC1189849pubmed: 2213581google scholar: lookup
  17. Edgley SA, Eyre JA, Lemon RN, Miller S. Comparison of activation of corticospinal neurons and spinal motor neurons by magnetic and electrical transcranial stimulation in the lumbosacral cord of the anaesthetized monkey.. Brain 1997 May;120 ( Pt 5):839-53.
    doi: 10.1093/brain/120.5.839pubmed: 9183254google scholar: lookup
  18. Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring - a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring.. Clin Neurophysiol 2013 Dec;124(12):2291-316.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.025pubmed: 24055297google scholar: lookup
  19. Nollet H, Van Ham L, Deprez P, Vanderstraeten G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: review of the technique, basic principles and applications.. Vet J 2003 Jul;166(1):28-42.
    doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(03)00025-Xpubmed: 12788015google scholar: lookup
  20. Nollet H, Van Ham L, Gasthuys F, Dewulf J, Vanderstraeten G, Deprez P. Influence of detomidine and buprenorphine on motor-evoked potentials in horses.. Vet Rec 2003 Apr 26;152(17):534-7.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.152.17.534pubmed: 12739602google scholar: lookup
  21. Hess CW, Ludin HP. [Transcranial cortex stimulation with magnetic field pulses: methodologic and physiologic principles].. EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Elektromyogr Verwandte Geb 1988 Dec;19(4):209-15.
    pubmed: 3145181
  22. Meylaerts SA, De Haan P, Kalkman CJ, Lips J, De Mol BA, Jacobs MJ. The influence of regional spinal cord hypothermia on transcranial myogenic motor-evoked potential monitoring and the efficacy of spinal cord ischemia detection.. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999 Dec;118(6):1038-45.
    doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70099-1pubmed: 10595976google scholar: lookup
  23. Kakimoto M, Kawaguchi M, Sakamoto T, Inoue S, Takahashi M, Furuya H. Effect of nitrous oxide on myogenic motor evoked potentials during hypothermia in rabbits anaesthetized with ketamine/fentanyl/propofol.. Br J Anaesth 2002 Jun;88(6):836-40.
    doi: 10.1093/bja/88.6.836pubmed: 12173203google scholar: lookup
  24. Luft AR, Kaelin-Lang A, Hauser TK, Cohen LG, Thakor NV, Hanley DF. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the rat.. Exp Brain Res 2001 Sep;140(1):112-21.
    doi: 10.1007/s002210100805pubmed: 11500803google scholar: lookup
  25. Murakami H, Tsukube T, Kawanishi Y, Okita Y. Transcranial myogenic motor-evoked potentials after transient spinal cord ischemia predicts neurologic outcome in rabbits.. J Vasc Surg 2004 Jan;39(1):207-13.
    doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)01050-4pubmed: 14718841google scholar: lookup
  26. Amassian VE, Cracco RQ, Maccabee PJ. Focal stimulation of human cerebral cortex with the magnetic coil: a comparison with electrical stimulation.. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1989 Nov-Dec;74(6):401-16.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(89)90029-4pubmed: 2480218google scholar: lookup
  27. Burke D, Hicks R, Gandevia SC, Stephen J, Woodforth I, Crawford M. Direct comparison of corticospinal volleys in human subjects to transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation.. J Physiol 1993 Oct;470:383-93.
    doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1993.sp019864pmc: PMC1143923pubmed: 8068071google scholar: lookup
  28. Bagley CJ. Cortical motor mechanism of the sheep brain. Arch Neurol Psychiatr 1922;7:417–453.
    doi: 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1922.02190100002001google scholar: lookup
  29. Lemon RN, Griffiths J. Comparing the function of the corticospinal system in different species: organizational differences for motor specialization?. Muscle Nerve 2005 Sep;32(3):261-79.
    doi: 10.1002/mus.20333pubmed: 15806550google scholar: lookup
  30. Rothwell J, Burke D, Hicks R, Stephen J, Woodforth I, Crawford M. Transcranial electrical stimulation of the motor cortex in man: further evidence for the site of activation.. J Physiol 1994 Nov 15;481 ( Pt 1)(Pt 1):243-50.
    doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1994.sp020435pmc: PMC1155882pubmed: 7853247google scholar: lookup
  31. Burke D, Bartley K, Woodforth IJ, Yakoubi A, Stephen JP. The effects of a volatile anaesthetic on the excitability of human corticospinal axons.. Brain 2000 May;123 ( Pt 5):992-1000.
    doi: 10.1093/brain/123.5.992pubmed: 10775543google scholar: lookup
  32. Sylvestre AM, Cockshutt JR, Parent JM, Brooke JD, Holmberg DL, Partlow GD. Magnetic motor evoked potentials for assessing spinal cord integrity in dogs with intervertebral disc disease.. Vet Surg 1993 Jan-Feb;22(1):5-10.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.1993.tb00360.xpubmed: 8488675google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Journée SL, Journée HL, Berends HI, Reed SM, Bergmann W, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses. Front Neurosci 2022;16:851463.
    doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.851463pubmed: 35573305google scholar: lookup
  2. Journée SL, Journée HL, Berends HI, Reed SM, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. Comparison of Muscle MEPs From Transcranial Magnetic and Electrical Stimulation and Appearance of Reflexes in Horses. Front Neurosci 2020;14:570372.
    doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.570372pubmed: 33122992google scholar: lookup
  3. Journée SL, Journée HL, Reed SM, Berends HI, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. Extramuscular Recording of Spontaneous EMG Activity and Transcranial Electrical Elicited Motor Potentials in Horses: Characteristics of Different Subcutaneous and Surface Electrode Types and Practical Guidelines. Front Neurosci 2020;14:652.
    doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00652pubmed: 32765207google scholar: lookup
  4. Journée SL, Journée HL, Bergmann W, Chantziaras I, Vanderperren K, Raes E, Reed SM, de Bruijn CM, Berends HI, Delesalle CJG. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) to assess neuronal functional integrity in horses. Front Neurosci 2024;18:1342803.
    doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1342803pubmed: 38665290google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,928 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.