Literature DB >> 17353054

Inter-individual variability in optimal current direction for transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex.

Daniela Balslev1, Wouter Braet, Craig McAllister, R Chris Miall.   

Abstract

We evaluated inter-individual variability in optimal current direction for biphasic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex. Motor threshold for first dorsal interosseus was detected visually at eight coil orientations in 45 degrees increments. Each participant (n=13) completed two experimental sessions. One participant with low test-retest correlation (Pearson's r<0.5) was excluded. In four subjects, visual detection of motor threshold was compared to EMG detection; motor thresholds were very similar and highly correlated (0.94-0.99). Similar with previous studies, stimulation in the majority of participants was most effective when the first current pulse flowed towards postero-lateral in the brain. However, in four participants, the optimal coil orientation deviated from this pattern. A principal component analysis using all eight orientations suggests that in our sample the optimal orientation of current direction was normally distributed around the postero-lateral orientation with a range of 63 degrees (S.D.=13.70 degrees). Whenever the intensity of stimulation at the target site is calculated as a percentage from the motor threshold, in order to minimize intensity and side-effects it may be worthwhile to check whether rotating the coil 45 degrees from the traditional posterior-lateral orientation decreases motor threshold.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17353054     DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci Methods        ISSN: 0165-0270            Impact factor:   2.390


  41 in total

1.  Where does transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) stimulate? Modelling of induced field maps for some common cortical and cerebellar targets.

Authors:  Janine D Bijsterbosch; Anthony T Barker; Kwang-Hyuk Lee; P W R Woodruff
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 2.  Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: definition, selection, and reporting practices.

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; Timothy A Wagner; Pedro C Miranda; Michael A Nitsche; Walter Paulus; Sarah H Lisanby; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Cortical neuron activation induced by electromagnetic stimulation: a quantitative analysis via modelling and simulation.

Authors:  Tiecheng Wu; Jie Fan; Kim Seng Lee; Xiaoping Li
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 1.621

4.  Determination of motor threshold using visual observation overestimates transcranial magnetic stimulation dosage: safety implications.

Authors:  Gregory G Westin; Bruce D Bassi; Sarah H Lisanby; Bruce Luber
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Simulation of transcranial magnetic stimulation in head model with morphologically-realistic cortical neurons.

Authors:  Aman S Aberra; Boshuo Wang; Warren M Grill; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 8.955

6.  Pulse width dependence of motor threshold and input-output curve characterized with controllable pulse parameter transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; Stefan M Goetz; Gregory G Westin; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Comparative modeling of transcranial magnetic and electric stimulation in mouse, monkey, and human.

Authors:  Ivan Alekseichuk; Kathleen Mantell; Sina Shirinpour; Alexander Opitz
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 8.  The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Zhi-De Deng
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2017-04-26

9.  Nonphysiological factors in navigated TMS studies; confounding covariates and valid intracortical estimates.

Authors:  Sein Schmidt; Rouven Bathe-Peters; Robert Fleischmann; Maria Rönnefarth; Michael Scholz; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  EEG responses to TMS are sensitive to changes in the perturbation parameters and repeatable over time.

Authors:  Silvia Casarotto; Leonor J Romero Lauro; Valentina Bellina; Adenauer G Casali; Mario Rosanova; Andrea Pigorini; Stefano Defendi; Maurizio Mariotti; Marcello Massimini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.