Klinische Neurophysiologie 2012; 43 - P137
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1301687

The importance of latency correction for navigated TMS mapping, especially of the face and tongue area: A Technical Note

C Weiß 1, CM Nettekoven 2, A Rehme 2, V Neuschmelting 1, A Eisenbeis 1, R Goldbrunner 1, C Grefkes 3
  • 1Klinik für Allgemeine Neurochirurgie der Uniklinik, Köln
  • 2Max Planck Institute for Neurological Research, Köln
  • 3Klinik für Neurologie, Uniklinik Köln, Köln

Facial mapping by navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nTMS)1–6 is often limited by direct stimulation effects of facial and trigeminal nerve fibres. Short latency MEPs recorded during mapping of the face and tongue area by nTMS may lead to false-positive results. We therefore analyzed MEP latencies in a preclinical trial.

Methods: We examined 10 healthy, right-handed subjects (5f/5m; age 24–34) on three days by single pulse nTMS. NTMS was applied at the dominant primary motor cortex at 110% of the resting motor threshold (RMT) using eXimia 3.2.2. MEPs were recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis muscle (APB; Figure 1), plantaris muscle, perioral muscles and the tongue. If the RMT could not be determined due to direct stimulation effects, mapping was performed at 95% of direct MT with muscular pre-contraction.

Results: Latencies directly correlated with human height, mostly for plantaris muscle mapping (figure 1). Mean latencies±1SD were 23±2ms for APB, 44±4ms for plantaris muscle, 10.8±0,6ms for mentalis muscle, 11.0±0.5ms for orbicularis oris muscle (OO) and 9.7±0.8ms for the tongue (figure 2). According to literature,7–9 we regarded latencies below 7.0ms as artifacts (due to direct nerve stimulation). Mapping of the perioral region was feasible in 8/10 subjects only, interfered by direct stimulation effects. Mean latencies were independent from muscular pre-contraction (21 investigations at rest / 21 investigations at pre-contraction; mean latency mentalis at rest 10,69ms, mentalis pre-contracted 11,03ms, OO at rest 11,33ms, OO pre-contracted 10,96ms).

Conclusions: NTMS mapping of the facial and tongue muscles is technically rather difficult. It often requires muscular pre-contraction to lower excitability thresholds. Direct facial nerve stimulation effects often interfere with cortical TMS effects. We suggest to use latency correction (7.0–16.0ms for tongue/face mapping, independent from pre-contraction, height or age).

Fig. 1: In our population, MEP latencies showed a direct correlation with human height but not significantly correlated with age. The clearest correlation with human height was found for plantaris muscle mapping.

Fig. 2: MEP latencies for face and toungue mapping by nTMS were previously corrected by exclusion of latencies below 7ms. We hereby intended to avoid false-positive results due to direct stimulation effects. Further analysis showed that mean latencies ±1SD ranged from 8.5ms to 12ms and thus were far away from MEP latencies below 7ms.

Literatur: 1. Bennett CM, Miller MB. How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Mar;1191:133-55. 2. Havel P, Braun B, Rau S, Tonn JC, Fesl G, Bruckmann H, et al. Reproducibility of activation in four motor paradigms. An fMRI study. J Neurol. 2006 Apr;253(4):471-6. 3. Pouratian N, Bookheimer SY. The reliability of neuroanatomy as a predictor of eloquence: a review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010 Feb;28(2):E3. 4. Picht T, Mularski S, Kuehn B, Vajkoczy P, Kombos T, Suess O. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for preoperative functional diagnostics in brain tumor surgery. Neurosurgery. 2009 Dec;65(6 Suppl):93-8; discussion 8-9. 5. Picht T, Schmidt S, Brandt S, Frey D, Hannula H, Neuvonen T, et al. Preoperative Functional Mapping for Rolandic Brain Tumor Surgery: Comparison of Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Direct Cortical Stimulation. Neurosurgery. 2011 Mar 23. 6. Aggarwal NT, Wilson RS, Bienias JL, De Jager PL, Bennett DA, Evans DA, et al. The association of magnetic resonance imaging measures with cognitive function in a biracial population sample. Arch Neurol. 2010 Apr;67(4):475-82. 7. Muellbacher W, Boroojerdi B, Ziemann U, Hallett M. Analogous corticocortical inhibition and facilitation in ipsilateral and contralateral human motor cortex representations of the tongue. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Nov;18(6):550-8. 8. Roedel RM, Laskawi R, Markus H. Cortical representation of the orbicularis oculi muscle as assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Laryngoscope. 2001 Nov;111(11 Pt 1):2005-11. 9. Roedel RM, Laskawi R, Markus H. Tongue representation in the lateral cortical motor region of the human brain as assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003 Jan;112(1):71-6.