Essential Tremor and Essential Tremor Plus Are Essentially Similar Electrophysiologically.

BACKGROUND: The merits of classifying the heterogeneous group of essential tremors into essential tremor (ET) and essential tremor plus (ETP) are debated. OBJECTIVES: We studied the electrophysiological and spiral characteristics of tremor in ET and ETP. METHODS: We reviewed standardized videos from a tremor database and clinically classified patients into ET, ETP, or dystonic tremor (DT). The following variables were derived from combined tri-axial accelerometry-surface electromyography (EMG)-peak frequency, total power, peak power, full width half maximum, tremor stability index and EMG-coherence. We analyzed hand-drawn spirals to derive mean deviation, tremor variability, inter-, and intra-loop widths. We compared these variables among the groups. RESULTS: We recruited 72 participants (81.9% male) with mean age 47.7 ± 16.1 years and Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale total score 31.1 ± 14.1. Patients with ET were younger (P = 0.014) and had less severe tremor (P = 0.020) compared to ETP and DT. In ETP group, 48.6% had subtle dystonia. Peak frequency was greater in ETP (7.3 ± 0.3 Hz) compared to DT (6.1 ± 0.4 Hz; P = 0.024). Peak power was greater in ETP and DT for postural tremor. Rest tremor was recordable on accelerometry in 26.7% of ET. Other variables were similar among the groups. CONCLUSION: Electrophysiological evaluation revealed postural tremor of frequency 6 to 7 Hz in ET, ETP, and DT with subtle differences more severe tremor in ETP and DT, and higher frequency in ETP compared to DT. Our findings suggest a similar tremor oscillator in these conditions, supporting the view that these entities are part of a spectrum of tremor disorders, rather than distinct etiological entities.

Inter-Individual Variability in Motor Output Is Driven by Recruitment Gain in the Corticospinal Tract Rather Than Motor Threshold.

Variability in the response of individuals to various non-invasive brain stimulation protocols is a major problem that limits their potential for clinical applications. Baseline motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude is the key predictor of an individual's response to transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols. However, the factors that predict MEP amplitude and its variability remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to identify the input-output curve (IOC) parameters that best predict MEP amplitude and its variability. We analysed IOC data from 75 subjects and built a general linear model (GLM) using the IOC parameters as regressors and MEP amplitude at 120% resting motor threshold (RMT) as the response variable. We bootstrapped the data to estimate variability of IOC parameters and included them in a GLM to identify the significant predictors of MEP amplitude variability. Peak slope, motor threshold, and maximum MEP amplitude of the IOC were significant predictors of MEP amplitude at 120% RMT and its variability was primarily driven by the variability of peak slope and maximum MEP amplitude. Recruitment gain and maximum corticospinal excitability are the key predictors of MEP amplitude and its variability. Inter-individual variability in motor output may be reduced by achieving a uniform IOC slope.