Ravjot S. Rehsi , Karishma R. Ramdeo , Stevie D. Foglia , Claudia V. Turco , Faith C. Adams , Stephen L. Toepp , Aimee J. Nelson
{"title":"研究短潜伏期和长潜伏期传入抑制的会话内可靠性","authors":"Ravjot S. Rehsi , Karishma R. Ramdeo , Stevie D. Foglia , Claudia V. Turco , Faith C. Adams , Stephen L. Toepp , Aimee J. Nelson","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2022.12.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To establish the intrasession relative and absolute reliability of Short (SAI) and Long-Latency Afferent Inhibition (LAI). These findings will allow us to guide future explorations of changes to these measures.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>31 healthy individuals (21.06 ± 2.85 years) had SAI and LAI obtained thrice at 30-minute intervals in one session. To identify the minimum number of trials required to reliably elicit SAI and LAI, relative reliability was assessed at running intervals of 5 trials.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>SAI had moderate–high, and LAI had high-excellent relative reliability. Both SAI and LAI had high amounts of measurement error. LAI had high relative reliability when only 5 frames of data were included, whereas SAI required ∼20–30 frames of data for the same. For both SAI and LAI, individual smallest detectable change was large but was reduced at the group level.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>SAI and LAI can be used for both diagnostic purposes and to assess group level change but have limited utility in assessing within-individual changes.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>These results can be used to inform future work regarding the utility of SAI and LAI, particularly in terms of their ability to identify particularly high or low values of afferent inhibition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"8 ","pages":"Pages 16-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cd/c2/main.PMC9826929.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the intra-session reliability of short and long latency afferent inhibition\",\"authors\":\"Ravjot S. Rehsi , Karishma R. Ramdeo , Stevie D. Foglia , Claudia V. Turco , Faith C. Adams , Stephen L. Toepp , Aimee J. Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cnp.2022.12.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To establish the intrasession relative and absolute reliability of Short (SAI) and Long-Latency Afferent Inhibition (LAI). These findings will allow us to guide future explorations of changes to these measures.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>31 healthy individuals (21.06 ± 2.85 years) had SAI and LAI obtained thrice at 30-minute intervals in one session. To identify the minimum number of trials required to reliably elicit SAI and LAI, relative reliability was assessed at running intervals of 5 trials.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>SAI had moderate–high, and LAI had high-excellent relative reliability. Both SAI and LAI had high amounts of measurement error. LAI had high relative reliability when only 5 frames of data were included, whereas SAI required ∼20–30 frames of data for the same. For both SAI and LAI, individual smallest detectable change was large but was reduced at the group level.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>SAI and LAI can be used for both diagnostic purposes and to assess group level change but have limited utility in assessing within-individual changes.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>These results can be used to inform future work regarding the utility of SAI and LAI, particularly in terms of their ability to identify particularly high or low values of afferent inhibition.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 16-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cd/c2/main.PMC9826929.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467981X22000488\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467981X22000488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Investigating the intra-session reliability of short and long latency afferent inhibition
Objective
To establish the intrasession relative and absolute reliability of Short (SAI) and Long-Latency Afferent Inhibition (LAI). These findings will allow us to guide future explorations of changes to these measures.
Methods
31 healthy individuals (21.06 ± 2.85 years) had SAI and LAI obtained thrice at 30-minute intervals in one session. To identify the minimum number of trials required to reliably elicit SAI and LAI, relative reliability was assessed at running intervals of 5 trials.
Results
SAI had moderate–high, and LAI had high-excellent relative reliability. Both SAI and LAI had high amounts of measurement error. LAI had high relative reliability when only 5 frames of data were included, whereas SAI required ∼20–30 frames of data for the same. For both SAI and LAI, individual smallest detectable change was large but was reduced at the group level.
Conclusions
SAI and LAI can be used for both diagnostic purposes and to assess group level change but have limited utility in assessing within-individual changes.
Significance
These results can be used to inform future work regarding the utility of SAI and LAI, particularly in terms of their ability to identify particularly high or low values of afferent inhibition.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Neurophysiology Practice (CNP) is a new Open Access journal that focuses on clinical practice issues in clinical neurophysiology including relevant new research, case reports or clinical series, normal values and didactic reviews. It is an official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology and complements Clinical Neurophysiology which focuses on innovative research in the specialty. It has a role in supporting established clinical practice, and an educational role for trainees, technicians and practitioners.