Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2025

Open-Source Real-Time Closed-Loop Electrical Threshold Tracking for Translational Pain Research
Published on: April 21, 2023
Short latency afferent inhibition: comparison between threshold-tracking and conventional amplitude recording methods
Bülent Cengiz1, H Evren Boran2, Halil Can Alaydın2
1Department of Neurology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Beşevler, 06500, Ankara, Turkey. bcengiz@gazi.edu.tr.
None:
Short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), which is conventionally measured as a reduction in motor evoked potential amplitude (A-SAI), is of clinical interest as a potential biomarker for cognitive impairment. Since threshold-tracking has some advantages for clinical studies of short-interval cortical inhibition, we have compared A-SAI with a threshold-tracking alternative method (T-SAI). In the T-SAI method, inhibition was calculated by tracking the required TMS intensity for the targeted MEP amplitude (200 uV) both for the test (TMS only) and paired (TMS and peripheral stimulation) stimuli. A-SAI and T-SAI were recorded from 31 healthy subjects using ten stimuli at each of 12 inter-stimulus intervals, once in the morning and again in the afternoon. There were no differences between morning and afternoon recordings. When A-SAI was normalized by log conversion it was closely related to T-SAI. Between subjects, variability was similar for the two techniques, but within-subject variability was significantly smaller for normalized A-SAI. Conventional amplitude measurements appear more sensitive for detecting changes within-subjects, such as in interventional studies, but threshold-tracking may be as sensitive as detecting abnormal SAI in a patient.

