False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials

Mark van de Ruit; Michael J. Grey

doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.015

False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials

Mark van de Ruit, Michael J. Grey^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: A trend in the non-invasive brain stimulation literature is to assess the outcome of an intervention using a responder analysis whereby participants are di- or trichotomised in order that they may be classified as either responders or non-responders. Objective: Examine the extent of the Type I error in motor evoked potential (MEP) data subjected to responder analyses. Methods: Seven sets of 30 MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in 52 healthy volunteers. Four classification techniques were used to classify the participants as responders or non-responders: (1) the two-step cluster analysis, (2) dichotomised thresholding, (3) relative method and (4) baseline variance method. Results: Despite the lack of any intervention, a significant number of participants were classified as responders (21–71%). Conclusion: This study highlights the very large Type I error associated with dichotomising continuous variables such as the TMS MEP.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	314-318
Journal	Brain Stimulation
Volume	12
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.015
Publication status	Published - 2019

Bibliographical note

Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care
Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.

Keywords

Corticospinal excitability
MEP
Plasticity
Responders
TMS
Variability

Access to Document

10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.015

1-s2.0-S1935861X18304169-mainFinal published version, 1 MB

Cite this

@article{1b07bf872b74482494edeb2ab55d509d,

title = "False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials",

abstract = "Background: A trend in the non-invasive brain stimulation literature is to assess the outcome of an intervention using a responder analysis whereby participants are di- or trichotomised in order that they may be classified as either responders or non-responders. Objective: Examine the extent of the Type I error in motor evoked potential (MEP) data subjected to responder analyses. Methods: Seven sets of 30 MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in 52 healthy volunteers. Four classification techniques were used to classify the participants as responders or non-responders: (1) the two-step cluster analysis, (2) dichotomised thresholding, (3) relative method and (4) baseline variance method. Results: Despite the lack of any intervention, a significant number of participants were classified as responders (21–71%). Conclusion: This study highlights the very large Type I error associated with dichotomising continuous variables such as the TMS MEP.",

keywords = "Corticospinal excitability, MEP, Plasticity, Responders, TMS, Variability",

author = "{van de Ruit}, Mark and Grey, {Michael J.}",

note = "Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.015",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

pages = "314--318",

journal = "Brain Stimulation",

issn = "1935-861X",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials

AU - van de Ruit, Mark

AU - Grey, Michael J.

N1 - Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Background: A trend in the non-invasive brain stimulation literature is to assess the outcome of an intervention using a responder analysis whereby participants are di- or trichotomised in order that they may be classified as either responders or non-responders. Objective: Examine the extent of the Type I error in motor evoked potential (MEP) data subjected to responder analyses. Methods: Seven sets of 30 MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in 52 healthy volunteers. Four classification techniques were used to classify the participants as responders or non-responders: (1) the two-step cluster analysis, (2) dichotomised thresholding, (3) relative method and (4) baseline variance method. Results: Despite the lack of any intervention, a significant number of participants were classified as responders (21–71%). Conclusion: This study highlights the very large Type I error associated with dichotomising continuous variables such as the TMS MEP.

AB - Background: A trend in the non-invasive brain stimulation literature is to assess the outcome of an intervention using a responder analysis whereby participants are di- or trichotomised in order that they may be classified as either responders or non-responders. Objective: Examine the extent of the Type I error in motor evoked potential (MEP) data subjected to responder analyses. Methods: Seven sets of 30 MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in 52 healthy volunteers. Four classification techniques were used to classify the participants as responders or non-responders: (1) the two-step cluster analysis, (2) dichotomised thresholding, (3) relative method and (4) baseline variance method. Results: Despite the lack of any intervention, a significant number of participants were classified as responders (21–71%). Conclusion: This study highlights the very large Type I error associated with dichotomising continuous variables such as the TMS MEP.

KW - Corticospinal excitability

KW - MEP

KW - Plasticity

KW - Responders

KW - TMS

KW - Variability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057954097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.015

DO - 10.1016/j.brs.2018.11.015

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85057954097

SN - 1935-861X

VL - 12

SP - 314

EP - 318

JO - Brain Stimulation

JF - Brain Stimulation

IS - 2

ER -

False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this