ライフサイエンスコーパス: motor threshold

1 itions, 600 pulses at 110% of target resting motor threshold).

2 nhibitory cTBS) or 30% (sham cTBS) of active motor threshold.

3 ball electrode at 30%, 60%, 90% and 300% of motor threshold.

4 after 600 pulses of 5 Hz rTMS at 90% resting motor threshold.

5 t of SICI at CSIs at or below 80% of resting motor threshold.

6 TMS or sham stimulation for 9 days at 90% of motor threshold.

7 d for the first MEP peak was <= 70 % resting motor threshold.

8 stimulus (S2) was set to 90 % of the resting motor threshold.

9 col and was greater in participants with low motor threshold.

10 The stimulus intensity was set at 80% of the motor threshold.

11 d rTMS to the left prefrontal cortex at 120% motor threshold (10 Hz, 4-second train duration, and 26-

12 on protocol with the intensity set (1) above motor threshold, (2) below motor threshold or (3) altern

13 itive transcranial magnetic stimulation (80% motor threshold, 20 Hz/2 seconds per minute for 20 minut

14 eal high-frequency rTMS (10 Hz, 100% resting motor threshold, 5-sec on, 10-sec off for 15 min; 3000 p

15 tion was characterized by a higher diaphragm motor threshold, a greater proportional increase in moto

16 session of Experiment 1, we assessed resting motor thresholds-a typical measure of cortical excitabil

17 We measured resting motor threshold, active motor threshold, input/output cu

18 sions over 5 consecutive days at 90% resting motor threshold (adjusted for cortical depth).

19 ir initial impairment, and ipsilesional rest motor threshold also resolved by 70%.

20 rTMS over SMA at an intensity of 110% active motor threshold (AMT) for the first dorsal interosseous

21 rTMS at 1 Hz and an intensity of 90% active motor threshold (AMT) produced a lasting decrease in cor

22 e intensity of stimulation was 80% of active motor threshold (AMT), and a total of 600 pulses were ap

23 facilitation (ICF), resting (rMT) and active motor thresholds (aMT) were recorded before and after a

24 nd ICF by four intensities (60-90% of active motor threshold, AMT) of the conditioning stimulus (S1)

25 Cortical excitability was assessed with motor threshold and intracortical facilitation measures.

26 d have included lesioned hemisphere, resting motor threshold and levels of depression as additional p

27 lity was quantified using resting and active motor thresholds and stimulus-response curves of the fir

28 oke survivors with high fatigue exhibit high motor thresholds and those who perceive high effort have

29 nscranial magnetic stimulation, 20 Hz at 80% motor threshold) and 2 weeks of sham treatment.

30 imulus intensities (CSIs; 40-100% of resting motor threshold) and at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) o

31 We measured resting and active motor thresholds, and short-interval intracortical inhib

32 es delivered at 10 Hz and 80% of the resting motor threshold at left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex,

33 rical stimulation there was no difference in motor threshold between the two sides.

34 he motor cortex were conditioned by a single motor threshold electrical stimulus to the median nerve

35 days with 1 session per hour at 90% resting motor threshold for 90 000 pulses total.

36 The active motor threshold for each muscle was determined using the

37 The resting motor threshold increased in the 600-mg/d ezogabine grou

38 We measured resting motor threshold, active motor threshold, input/output curve, short interval intr

39 We found no difference in motor thresholds, input/output curves or cortical silent

40 show that tSCS at alternating supra- and sub-motor threshold intensities preferentially improves hype

41 neurons, when compared to the supra- and sub-motor threshold intensity protocols.

42 The resting motor threshold intensity to transcranial magnetic stimu

43 fter 30 min of peroneal nerve stimulation at motor threshold intensity.

44 There were no specific changes in motor thresholds, intracortical circuits, or recruitment

45 5 parameters using a custom-made algorithm: motor threshold, latency, area-under-the-curve, peak-to-

46 motor neuron excitability (including resting motor threshold) measured by transcranial magnetic stimu

47 Cortical excitability was assessed using motor threshold (MT) and paired pulse stimulation at sho

48 E-field models with amplitude titrations of motor threshold (MT) and seizure threshold (ST) in four

49 cord stimulation (SCS) at intensities below motor threshold (MT) produces cutaneous vasodilation thr

50 hold (ST) by a non-convulsive measurement of motor threshold (MT) using single pulses delivered throu

51 r 500 Hz was applied at 30%, 60%, and 90% of motor threshold (MT) using standard square waves.

52 tivariate regression models per TMS markers: motor threshold (MT), motor evoked potential (MEP), shor

53 fferentation were probed with TMS, measuring motor threshold (MT), motor evoked-potential (MEP) size,

54 ball electrode at 30%, 60%, 90% and 300% of motor threshold (MT).

55 ct SCS-induced vasodilation at 30 and 60% of motor threshold (MT).

56 ity set (1) above motor threshold, (2) below motor threshold or (3) alternating between supra- and su

57 our weeks of daily active iTBS (120% resting motor threshold) or sham iTBS to the LDLPFC.

58 < .05) as well as a reduction in the resting motor threshold (P < .05) and cortical silent period dur

59 ng a motor evoked potential (MEP) during the motor thresholding procedure.

60 he criterion for identifying MEPs during the motor thresholding procedure.

61 TMS method using EMG-normalized criteria for motor thresholding produced reliable results utilizing a

62 x with a magnetic field intensity of 100% of motor threshold, pulse frequency of 10 per second, a 4 s

63 Resting motor threshold (R = 0.384; 95% confidence interval = 0.

64 at an intensity of either 90 or 110% resting motor threshold (RMT) suppressed motor-evoked potentials

65 TMS was applied at 120% of resting motor threshold (rMT) up to a maximum of 100% maximum st

66 ility, as a measurement of increased resting motor threshold (RMT) with transcranial magnetic stimula

67 Cortical resting motor threshold (RMT), lower threshold indicating hypere

68 ncy of 1 Hz, at an intensity of 100% resting motor threshold (RMT), with 1000 stimulation administere

69 ed via the well-known concept of the resting motor threshold (RMT).

70 primary motor cortex (M1), we tested resting motor thresholds (RMT), recruitments curves to transcran

71 A single TMS pulse (110% resting motor threshold, RMT) to the left dorsal premotor cortex

72 eshold with S2 held constant at 90 % resting motor threshold showed that the threshold for the first

73 re found between groups in resting or active motor threshold, SICI threshold, or the extent of SICI a

74 and it remains unknown whether sub- or supra-motor threshold stimulation intensity is preferable for

75 de showed normal RST projections and reduced motor thresholds, suggestive of precocious development.

76 g, but not 50 mg, of S44819 decreased active motor threshold, the intensity needed to produce a motor

77 h an earpiece, and electrical stimuli around motor threshold to the biceps muscle via surface electro

78 persistent AVHs as a group, especially when motor threshold was consistently detected.

79 After limiting analyses to patients whose motor threshold was detected consistently: 1) endpoint H

80 The threshold for inhibition (0.7 active motor threshold) was slightly lower than that for facili

81 Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and motor threshold were recorded from extensor carpi radial

82 ves in small hand muscles were depressed and motor thresholds were elevated compared with aged-matche

83 , 5 d rTMS to motor cortex decreased resting motor threshold, which correlates with heightened BDNF-T

84 he S1 intensity between 70 and 130 % resting motor threshold with S2 held constant at 90 % resting mo