研究短潜伏期和长潜伏期传入抑制的会话内可靠性

IF 2 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Clinical Neurophysiology Practice Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cnp.2022.12.001
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 ,&nbsp;Karishma R. Ramdeo ,&nbsp;Stevie D. Foglia ,&nbsp;Claudia V. Turco ,&nbsp;Faith C. Adams ,&nbsp;Stephen L. Toepp ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Karishma R. Ramdeo ,&nbsp;Stevie D. Foglia ,&nbsp;Claudia V. Turco ,&nbsp;Faith C. Adams ,&nbsp;Stephen L. Toepp ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的建立短时传入抑制(SAI)和长潜伏期传入抑制(LAI)的区间内相对和绝对可靠性。这些发现将使我们能够指导未来对这些措施变化的探索。方法31名健康人(21.06 ± 2.85 年)的SAI和LAI在一个疗程中以30分钟的间隔获得三次。为了确定可靠引发SAI和LAI所需的最小试验次数,以5次试验的运行间隔评估相对可靠性。结果SAI为中-高,LAI为高-优相对可靠性。SAI和LAI都具有较高的测量误差。当只包括5帧数据时,LAI具有较高的相对可靠性,而SAI需要20-30帧数据。对于SAI和LAI,个体最小可检测变化较大,但在组水平上有所减少。结论SAI和LAI既可用于诊断目的,也可用于评估群体水平的变化,但在评估个体内变化方面的作用有限。重要的是,这些结果可用于为未来关于SAI和LAI的实用性的工作提供信息,特别是在它们识别传入抑制的特别高或特别低值的能力方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
71 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Primary progressive aphasia with focal periodic sharp wave complexes: An unusual manifestation of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease Effects of sleep deprivation on cortical excitability: A threshold-tracking TMS study and review of the literature The role of clinical neurophysiology in the definition and assessment of fatigue and fatigability Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MND/ALS: IFCN handbook chapter Clinical neurophysiology of REM parasomnias: Diagnostic aspects and insights into pathophysiology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1