Literature DB >> 17016158

Focality assessment in transcranial magnetic stimulation with double and cone coils.

Eugen R Lontis1, Michael Voigt, Johannes J Struijk.   

Abstract

To evaluate the performance with respect to selectivity of the effect of the wings bending in the cone coil relative to the double coil in transcranial magnetic stimulation. The focal area and the width vector of the central lobe of the induced electrical field distributed along an elliptic surface approximating the cortex were computed for four coil models. The models represented the real coils, the double B70 and the cone B80 Medtronic, and their corresponding simulated flat coils (B70flat and B80flat). A response function was evaluated in 10 subjects for distal and proximal muscles of the upper limb by stimulation of the motor cortex along a line approximating the central sulcus. The width of the response function, at the level of the center of gravity, provided a quantitative measure for coil focality. The focal area for B70, B70flat, B80, and B80flat calculated from the model was 31.4, 32.2, 94.4, and 50.6 cm2, respectively. The width of the central lobe along the stimulation line was: 36.2, 37, 46, and 48.6 mm, respectively. Mean values of focality measure obtained experimentally were in distal muscles, 5.06 RPU (relative position units) for B70 and 5.99 RPU for B80; in proximal muscles, 4.11 RPU for B70 and 5.13 RPU for B80, with a mean RPU value of 11.13 mm. The difference, a 19% focality measure increase in B80 relative to B70 in distal muscles, was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The focality was demonstrated to be highest for the double coil. The width of the central lobe of the induced electrical field distribution is well reflected in the width of the response function. The increase in B80 is mainly due to wing geometry and relative placement of wings and is not due to the wing bending. The width of the central lobe characterizes the spread of the induced current below the wing junction, and it is a better focality estimator than the focal area for cone coils.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17016158     DOI: 10.1097/01.wnp.0000229944.63011.a1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0736-0258            Impact factor:   2.177


  13 in total

1.  Placebo-controlled study of rTMS combined with Lokomat® gait training for treatment in subjects with motor incomplete spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Hatice Kumru; Jesus Benito-Penalva; Josep Valls-Sole; Narda Murillo; Josep M Tormos; Cecilia Flores; Joan Vidal
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Coil design considerations for deep transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Zhi-De Deng; Sarah H Lisanby; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-12-22       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs.

Authors:  Zhi-De Deng; Sarah H Lisanby; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Therapeutic Application of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Rehabilitative Training for Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Case Report.

Authors:  Shin Sato; Wataru Kakuda; Mitsuhiro Sano; Takamasa Kitahara; Risa Kiko
Journal:  Prog Rehabil Med       Date:  2018-06-30

Review 5.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Simone Rossi; Mark Hallett; Paolo M Rossini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.708

6.  Reduced Cerebellar Brain Inhibition Measured Using Dual-Site TMS in Older Than in Younger Adults.

Authors:  B K Rurak; J P Rodrigues; B D Power; P D Drummond; A M Vallence
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.847

7.  Comparing cortico-motor hotspot identification methods in the lower extremities post-stroke: MEP amplitude vs. latency.

Authors:  J H Kindred; J J Cash; J B Ergle; C C Charalambous; E C Wonsetler; M G Bowden
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 3.197

8.  The effect of theta-burst TMS on cognitive control networks measured with resting state fMRI.

Authors:  Caterina Gratton; Taraz G Lee; Emi M Nomura; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2013-12-30

9.  Comparison of the induced fields using different coil configurations during deep transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Mai Lu; Shoogo Ueno
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Transpinal and transcortical stimulation alter corticospinal excitability and increase spinal output.

Authors:  Maria Knikou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.