Large-scale analysis of interindividual variability in single and paired-pulse TMS data: results from the 'Big TMS Data Collaboration'
Hannah G. K. Bereznicki, Gillian M. Clark, George J. YoussefiD, Peter J. FriediD, Ali JannatiiD, Charlotte B. Davies, Joyce Gomes-Osman, Melissa KirkovskiiD, Natalia Albein-Urios, Paul B. Fitzgerald, Giacomo KochiD, Vincenzo Di LazzaroiD, Álvaro Pascual‐LeoneiD, Peter G. EnticottiD
Abstract
ObjectiveInterindividual variability of single and paired-pulse TMS data has limited the clinical and experimental applicability of these methods. This study brought together over 60 TMS researchers to create the largest known sample of individual participant single and paired-pulse TMS data to date, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of factors driving response variability. Methods118 corresponding authors provided deidentified individual TMS data. Mixed-effects regression investigated a range of individual and study level variables for their contribution to variability in response to single and pp TMS data. Results687 healthy participants TMS data was pooled across 35 studies. Target muscle, pulse waveform, neuronavigation use, and TMS machine significantly predicted an individuals single pulse TMS amplitude. Baseline MEP amplitude, M1 hemisphere, and biphasic AMT significantly predicted SICI response. Baseline MEP amplitude, test stimulus intensity, interstimulus interval, monophasic RMT, monophasic AMT, and biphasic RMT significantly predicted ICF response. Age, M1 hemisphere, and TMS machine significantly predicted motor threshold. ConclusionsThis large-scale analysis has identified a number of factors influencing participants responses to single and paired pulse TMS. We provide specific recommendations to increase the standardisation of TMS methods within and across laboratories, thereby minimising interindividual variability in single and pp TMS data. HighlightsO_LI687 healthy participants TMS data was pooled across 35 studies C_LIO_LISignificant relationships between age and resting motor threshold C_LIO_LISignificant relationships between baseline MEP amplitude and SICI/ICF C_LI
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 2
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Test-retest reliability of TMS motor evoked responses and silent periods during explosive voluntary isometric contractions.
Federico Castelli, Omar S. Mian, … Neale Anthony Tillin·European Journal of Applied PhysiologyPeer-reviewed·Feb 22, 2025
- Stimulus predictability rather than inter-trial interval itself affects motor evoked potential amplitudes
Saman Seifpour, Nele Haferkorn, … Til Ole Bergmann·bioRxiv·Sep 18, 2026
- Brain-State-Resolved Consistency of Corticospinal Responses with EEG-TMS
Timo van Hattem, Juliana Hougland, … Ulf Ziemann·bioRxiv·May 28, 2026
- Modulation of motor cortex plasticity by repetitive paired-pulse TMS at late I-wave intervals is influenced by intracortical excitability
George M. Opie, Ryoki Sasaki, … John G. Semmler·Brain SciencesPeer-reviewed·Jan 18, 2021
- Methodological choices matter: A systematic comparison of TMS-EEG studies targeting the primary motor cortex
Mikkel Malling Beck, Marieke Heyl, … Hartwig Roman Siebner·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Oct 15, 2024
- The Spectral Features Of EEG Responses To Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Of The Primary Motor Cortex Depend On The Amplitude Of The Motor Evoked Potentials
Matteo Fecchio, Andrea Pigorini, … Mario Rosanova·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Sep 14, 2017