Comparing electromyography, accelerometry, and visual inspection to assess the resting motor threshold for transcranial magnetic stimulation
Gautier HamolineiD, Antoine E Lunardi, Marcos Moreno VerdúiD, Baptiste M Waltzing, Elise E Van Caenegem, Siobhan MacAteer, Robert M. HardwickiD
Abstract
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
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Field percentile
- top 17%
- 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
- 'RMT-Finder': an automated procedure to determine the Resting Motor Threshold for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Laurine Boidequin, Marcos Moreno Verdú, … Robert M. Hardwick·Journal of Neuroscience MethodsPeer-reviewed·May 2, 2026
- A Comparison of Techniques to Determine Active Motor Threshold for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research
Jonathan P. Beausejour, Jay Rusch, … Matt S. Stock·Brain ResearchPeer-reviewed·Jul 3, 2024
- Three Novel Methods for Determining Motor Threshold with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Outperform Conventional Procedures
B. Wang, A. V. Peterchev, S. M. Goetz·bioRxiv·Jun 26, 2022
- Variants of relative frequency methods for determining transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold do not provide accurate estimation of threshold
Boshuo Wang, Stefan M. Goetz, Angel V. Peterchev·bioRxiv·Jul 29, 2026
- Very low amplitude muscle activity increases probability of motor evoked potentials in healthy individuals and in ALS
Séamus O’Sullivan, Yasmine Tadjine, … Roisin McMackin·bioRxiv·Aug 7, 2025
- Matching Corticospinal and Cortical Excitability along the motor cortex: TMS-EMG-EEG study
Maria Nazarova, Macey Higdon, … Hanna Renvall·bioRxiv·Nov 4, 2026