Sensory and motor stimulation thresholds of the ulnar nerve from electric and magnetic field stimuli: Implications to gradient coil operation
Bryan J. Recoskie
Department of Medical Biophysics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorTimothy J. Scholl
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorMartin Zinke-Allmang
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Blaine A. Chronik
Department of Medical Biophysics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7===Search for more papers by this authorBryan J. Recoskie
Department of Medical Biophysics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorTimothy J. Scholl
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorMartin Zinke-Allmang
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Blaine A. Chronik
Department of Medical Biophysics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7===Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Rapidly changing magnetic fields from gradient coils induce electric fields in the individual being imaged, which can potentially result in peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). This is a safety concern in MRI. Nerves exposed to either electric fields or time-varying magnetic fields are presumed to display equivalent stimulation threshold characteristics. This assumption has motivated the use of electric stimulation literature to be applied to gradient field safety standards. The consistency of peripheral nerve stimulation thresholds were compared by measuring chronaxie times for electric and magnetic stimulation for both motor and sensory fibers in the ulnar nerve for a group of healthy volunteers. Thresholds were determined with both electromyography and also by having the subjects report stimulation onset. Chronaxie times measured between motor and sensory fibers were statistically different. However, this difference does not account for the substantial discrepancy reported between measured electric and magnetic stimulation chronaxie times. We further establish that sensation threshold as defined perceptually by the subject volunteer is adequate as a simple and reliable measurement tool. Based on these observations, significant adjustments may need to be made to nerve parameters taken from the electric field stimulation literature prior to applying them directly to gradient induced stimulation in MRI. Magn Reson Med, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 Cohen M, Weisskoff R, Rzedzian R, Kantor H. Sensory stimulation by time-varying gradient fields. Magn Reson Med 1990; 14: 409–414.
- 2 Hoffman A, Faber S, Wehhahn K, Jager L, Reiser M. Electromyography in MRI—first recordings of peripheral nerve activation caused by fast magnetic field gradients. Magn Reson Med 2000; 43: 534–539.
- 3 Schaefer D, Bourland J, Nyenhuis J. Review of patient safety in time-varying gradient fields. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 20–29.
- 4
Reilly J.
Applied bioelectricity.
New York:
Springer-Verlag;
1998.
10.1007/978-1-4612-1664-3 Google Scholar
- 5 Athey T. Current FDA guidance for MR patient exposure and considerations for the future. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1992; 649: 242–257.
- 6 Recoskie BJ. Scholl TJ. Chronik BA. Discrepancy between human peripheral nerve chronaxie times as measured using magnetic and electric field stimuli: the relevance to MRI gradient coil safety. Phys Med Biol 2009; 5965–5979.
- 7 Lotz B, Dunne J, Daube J. Preferential activation of muscle fibers with peripheral magnetic stimulation of the limb. Muscle Nerve 1989; 12: 636–639.
- 8 Panizza M, Nilsson J, Roth B, Basser P, Hallett M. Relevance of stimulus duration for activation of motor and sensory fibers: implications for the study of H-reflexes and magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992; 85: 22–29.
- 9 Weiss G. Sur la possibilite de render comparable entre eux les appareils servant a l'excitation electrique. Arch Ital Biol 1901; 413–446.
- 10 Mogyoros I, Kiernan MC, Burke D. Strength-duration properties of human peripheral nerve. Brain 1996; 119: 439–447.
- 11 Irnich W, Schmitt F. Magnetostimulation in MRI. Magn Reson Med 1995; 33: 619–623.
- 12 Chronik BA, Rutt BK. A comparison between human magnetostimulation thresholds in whole-body and head/neck gradient coils. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 386–394.
- 13 The University of Western Ontario Research Ethics Board for Health Science Research Involving Human Subjects. Review 10901: Approved February 17, 2005.
- 14 Licht S. Electrodiagnosis and electromyography. New Haven: Elizabeth Licht; 1971.
- 15 Oh SJ. Clinical electromyography: nerve conduction studies. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
- 16 Evans BA. Magnetic stimulation of the peripheral nerve. J Neurophysiol 1991; 8: 77–84.
- 17 Roth BJ, Cohen LG, Hallett M. The electric field induced during magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 1991; 43: 268–278.
- 18 Yerdelen D, Uysal H, Koc F, Sarica Y. Effects of age and sex on strength-duration properties. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117: 2069–2072.
- 19 Lin C, Chan J, Pierrot-Deseilligny E, Burke D. Excitability of human muscle afferents studied using threshold tracking of the H reflex. J Physiol 2002; 545: 661–669.
- 20 Holsheimer J, Dijkstra EA, Demeulemeester H, Nuttin B. Chronaxie calculated from current-duration and voltage-duration data. J Neurosci Methods 2000; 97: 45–50.
- 21Panizza M, Nilsson J, Roth BJ, Grill SE, DeMirci M, Hallett M. Differences between the time constant of sensory and motor peripheral nerve fibers: further studies and considerations. Muscle Nerve 1998; 21: 48–54.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199801)21:1<48::AID-MUS7>3.0.CO;2-G CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 22 Mogyoros I, Lin C, Dowla S, Grosskreutz J, Burke D. Strength-duration properties and their voltage dependence at different sites along the median nerve. Clin Neurophysiol 1999; 110: 1618–1624.
- 23 Panizza M, Nilsson J, Roth BJ, Rothwell J, Hallet M. The time constants of motor and sensory peripheral nerve fibers measured with the method of latent addition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 93: 147–154.
- 24 Alon G, Allin J, Inbar GF. Optimization of pulse duration and pulse charge during transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Aust J Physiother 1983; 29: 195–201.
- 25 Rollman GB. Behavioral assessment of peripheral nerve function. Neurology 1975; 25: 339–342.
- 26 Hahn J. Cutaneous vibratory thresholds for square-wave electric pulses. Science 1958; 127: 879–880.
- 27 Sigel H. Prick threshold stimulation with square-wave current; a new measure of skin sensibility. Yale J Biol Med 1953; 26: 145–154.
- 28 Plonsey R. Bioelectric phenomena. New York: McGraw Hill; 1969.
- 29 Chronik BA, Ramachandran M. Simple anatomical measurements do not correlate significantly to individual peripheral nerve stimulation thresholds as measured in MRI gradient coils. Magn Reson Med 2003; 17: 716–721.
- 30 Zhang B, Yen Y-F, Chronik BA, McKinnon GC, Schaefer DJ, Rutt BK. Peripheral nerve stimulation properties of head and body gradient coils of various sizes. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50: 50–58.
- 31 DenBoer JA, Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA, Ham CL, Engels JM, Hebrank FX, Frese G, Schaefer DJ. Comparison of the threshold for peripheral nerve stimulation during gradient switching in whole body MR systems. Magn Reson Med 2002; 15: 520–525.
- 32 Ham C, Engels J, Wiel GVD, Machielsen A. Peripheral nerve stimulation during MRI: effects of high gradient amplitudes and switching rates. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 933–937.
- 33 Havel W. Comparison of rectangular and damped sinusoidal dB/dt waveforms in magnetic stimulation. IEEE Trans Magn 1997; 33: 4269–4271.
- 34 Bourland J, Nyenhuis J, Noe W, Schaefer D, Foster K, Geddes L. Motor and sensory strength-duration curves for MRI gradient fields. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, New York, New York, 1996. p 1724.
- 35 Barker AT, Garnham CW, Freeston IL. Magnetic nerve stimulation: the effect of waveform on efficiency, determination of neural membrane time constants and the measurement of stimulator output. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 1991; 43: 227–237.
- 36 Budinger T, Fischer H, Hentschel D, Reinfelder H, Schmitt F. Physiological effects of fast oscillating magnetic field gradients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991; 15: 909–914.
- 37 McRobbie D, Foster M. Thresholds for biological effects of time-varying magnetic fields. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1984; 5: 67–78.
- 38 Veale J, Mark R, Rees S. Differential sensitivity of motor and sensory fibres in human ulnar nerve. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1973; 36: 75–86
- 39 Pfeiffer E. Electrical stimulation of sensory nerves with skin electrodes for research, diagnosis, communication and behavioral conditioning: a survey. Med Biol Eng 1968; 6: 637–651.
- 40 Geddes L. Accuracy limitations of chronaxie values. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004; 51: 176–181.
Citing Literature
December 2010
Pages 1567-1579
