Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 8, 2026
Author Spotlight: Studying Neuromuscular Responses and Motor Neuron Plasticity in Neurodegenerative Diseases
Published on: April 19, 2024
Evaluating diaphragm motor response variability in electric and magnetic phrenic nerve stimulations during passive
Ivan Chakalov1,2, Swen Hülsmann1, Perianen Ramasawmy2
1Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert Koch-Strasse 40, 37075 Goettingen, Germany.
Objective:
This study assessed variability in cervical electrical (CEPNS) and magnetic (CMPNS) phrenic nerve stimulation alongside transcranial magnetic stimulation (diTMS) of the diaphragm, focusing on motor response latency and amplitude at individually calculated suprathreshold intensities.
Methods:
Diaphragm motor responses were elicited via CEPNS and CMPNS (measuring compound muscle action potentials, CMAPs) and diTMS (measuring diaphragm motor evoked potentials, diMEPs). Latency and amplitude were recorded. Statistical analyses compared methods, evaluated variability using coefficients of variation (CV), and explored associations with height and central motor conduction time.
Results:
Among 25 participants (mean age 25 ± 4 years), CMPNS evoked CMAPs in 21 subjects, CEPNS in 16, with 12 responding to both. No significant latency or amplitude differences emerged between CEPNS and CMPNS responders. TMS evoked diMEPs in 24 participants. Latency was more consistent than amplitude across all methods; CMPNS exhibited the lowest amplitude variability. Height moderately correlated positively with CMAP latency and negatively with central motor conduction time.
Conclusions:
Individually adapted suprathreshold CEPNS and CMPNS assessed phrenic nerve conduction with varying success rates. Latency was a more reliable measure than amplitude. CMPNS and diTMS surpassed CEPNS in response reliability, positioning magnetic stimulations as preferable for assessing phrenic nerve conduction. CEPNS might not be suitable for examining motor response amplitudes when not applied at supramaximal intensity. Height-related anatomical factors influencing conduction merit further study.
Significance:
Latency of diaphragm motor responses elicited at individually estimated stimulation intensities offers a more consistent biomarker over amplitude for assessing phrenic nerve function.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Physiology of Respiration II: Neurogenic Control of Respiration
Central Control
The brainstem is the primary site of central control, hosting respiratory centers:
01:20Motor Unit Stimulation
The latent period of contraction marks the onset of excitation-contraction coupling, when the action potential propagates across the sarcolemma, preparing the muscle fibers for contraction. As the fibers enter the contraction phase, the...
01:23Mechanism of Breathing II: Expiration
Expiration, or exhaling, is a complex physiological process that begins as the inspiratory muscles begin to relax. This relaxation triggers a series of events that epitomize the efficiency of the respiratory system.
Mechanism of Expiration:
01:23Physiological Control of Respiration
Breathing, a seemingly passive process, is regulated by the respiratory center in the brainstem. This center coordinates the involuntary control of respirations, which means it occurs without conscious effort, ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted pattern.
Regulation of Ventilation
The body maintains ventilation by monitoring levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), and hydrogen ion concentration (pH) in the arterial blood. Among these factors, the level of CO2 plays a crucial...
01:22Muscle Stimulation Frequency
Wave summation
At low firing rates, motor neurons induce individual twitch contractions in muscle fibers. These twitches...