Biology subjects

Hamoline, G.

Publications and source records attributed to Hamoline, G..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2025

Comparing electromyography, accelerometry, and visual inspection to assess the resting motor threshold for transcranial magnetic stimulation

IntroductionElectromyography (EMG) remains the gold standard for estimating the Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) studies, but its cost and limited accessibility often lead researchers to use visual inspection (VIS). However, VIS may introduce variability and systematic bias. Accelerometry (ACC) offers a cost-effective, objective alternative to capture TMS-evoked responses. ObjectiveTo compare the RMT as estimated using EMG, ACC, and VIS. MethodsFive participants underwent TMS while EMG, ACC, and video recordings were collected. Separately, 64 observers judged hand movement in videos to estimate RMT via VIS. RMTs were compared across the three methods using Bayesian model comparison, Bland-Altman analyses, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). ResultsRMTs estimated via EMG were lower than those obtained using either ACC or VIS. Compared to EMG, VIS tended to overestimate RMT (mean bias = 5.23%, 95%CI = [1.00-11.00]), while ACC and VIS estimates were more closely aligned (mean bias = 0.43%, 95%CI = [-4.00 - 5.00]). ICC (2,1) values indicated moderate reliability for VIS vs EMG (mean = 0.580, 95%CI = [0.389 - 0.748]), and good-to-excellent reliability for VIS vs ACC (mean = 0.845). However, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals identified significant variability in the estimates provided by visual inspection, ranging from +1 to +11 for VIS vs EMG, but as low as -4 to +5 for VIS vs ACC. ConclusionsEMG remains the most sensitive technique for estimating the RMT, but when EMG is not feasible, accelerometery provides a quantifiable, more objective, and less variable alternative than visual inspection. HighlightsO_LIVisual inspection introduces observer-related variability in RMT estimation C_LIO_LIVisual inspection & accelerometry systematically overestimate RMT compared to EMG C_LIO_LIEMG remains the most sensitive method for estimating RMT C_LIO_LIAccelerometry is an objective alternative to visual inspection if EMG is unavailable C_LI

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2025

Information processing in the Hand Laterality Judgement Task: Fundamental differences between dorsal and palmar views revealed by a Forced Response paradigm

Imagining performing movements (motor imagery) has broad applications from fundamental neuroscience to sports and rehabilitation. However, measuring motor imagery ability is challenging due to its covert nature. While the Hand Laterality Judgement Task (HLJT) has been investigated as a measure of implicit motor imagery ability, our understanding of mechanisms underlying performance of the task is limited. We used a forced response paradigm to study the time-course of information processing in the HLJT. Participants (N=54) performed a modified HLJT where the time they had to process the stimulus was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis, allowing us to reconstruct the time-course of information processing. Generalised Additive Mixed Models assessed the relationship between processing time and accuracy, which varied across rotation angles (0{degrees} to 180{degrees} in 45{degrees} steps), hand views (dorsal or palmar) or directions (medial or lateral). Stimulus rotation substantively increased the time needed to produce a correct response, although this effect was non-monotonic. Computational modelling confirmed a crucial interaction between hand view and rotation angle, identifying fundamental differences in processing for palmar stimuli with more extreme rotations ([≥]135{degrees}) compared to other stimuli. Finally, a biomechanical constraints effect (i.e. faster processing of medial vs laterally rotated stimuli) was present in both views, but was only statistically significant in palmar views, again suggesting differences in processing palmar and dorsal stimuli. These results improve our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying the HLJT and may have broader importance for our understanding of mental processes implicated in motor imagery.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2022

Consistent Under-reporting of Task Details in Motor Imagery Research

Motor Imagery is a subject of longstanding scientific interest. However, critical details of motor imagery protocols are not always reported in full, hampering direct replication and translation of this work. The present review provides a quantitative assessment of the prevalence of under-reporting in the recent motor imagery literature. Publications from the years 2018-2020 were examined, with 695 meeting the inclusion criteria for further examination. Of these studies, 64% (445/695) did not provide information about the modality of motor imagery (i.e., kinesthetic, visual, or a mixture of both) used in the study. When visual or mixed imagery was specified, the details of the visual perspective to be used (i.e., first person, third person, or combinations of both) were not reported in 24% (25/103) of studies. Further analysis indicated that studies using questionnaires to assess motor imagery reported more information than those that did not. We conclude that studies using motor imagery consistently under-report key details of their protocols, which poses a significant problem for understanding, replicating, and translating motor imagery effects.

neuroscience↗