Precise estimation of human corticospinal excitability associated with the levels of motor imagery-related EEG desynchronization extracted by a locked-in amplifier algorithm.
Kensho Takahashi, Kenji Kato, Nobuaki Mizuguchi and 1 others
PMID 30384845WHAT IT FOUND
In 17 healthy people, a new EEG signal-processing method tracked motor imagery brain activity more consistently than the usual FFT method.
It did not test whether this improves stroke rehabilitation.
Key findings
01For both FFT and LIA, motor imagery at 70% alpha desynchronization produced larger normalized motor-evoked responses than at 35%.
02Average motor-evoked response size did not differ between LIA and FFT at either 35% or 70% desynchronization.
03LIA reduced trial-to-trial variability of normalized motor-evoked responses compared with FFT at both 35% and 70% desynchronization.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 17 healthy right-handed adults, average age 23.8 ± 2.8 years, were studied. No patients with stroke or motor deficits were tested, so the result is not a clinical treatment finding. The study did not test BCI therapy or movement recovery. The average motor-evoked response size was not larger with the lock-in amplifier algorithm than with FFT at 35% or 70%. The method tracked a single most reactive alpha frequency, while motor imagery-related desynchronization can involve broader alpha and beta bands. The paper reports participant blinding to condition order, but not whether experimenters were blinded.
Declared interests
The supplied article text does not include a conflicts of interest or funding declaration.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that this method improves stroke rehabilitation. It was tested in 17 healthy people using brain stimulation, not in patients receiving therapy, and it did not show better average motor-evoked responses, only less variability.