False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials
Mark van de Ruit (TU Delft - Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control)
Michael J. Grey (University of East Anglia)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
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.