BACKGROUND: Most methods of sham, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) fail to replicate the look, sound, and feel of active stimulation in the absence of a significant magnetic field. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To develop and validate a new method of sham rTMS appropriate for a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with subject crossover. METHODS: The look and sound of active rTMS was replicated using a matched, air-cooled sham TMS coil. Scalp muscle stimulation associated with rTMS was replicated using large rubber electrodes placed over selected muscles. The intensity and pulse width of electrical stimulation necessary to match 1-Hz rTMS was developed in one sample of normal subjects. The sham technique was validated in back-to-back comparisons with active rTMS in new samples of normal subjects who were either naïve or experienced with rTMS. RESULTS: Subjects naïve to TMS could not tell which type of stimulation was active or sham or which was electrical or magnetic. Naïve subjects incorrectly picked sham stimulation as active, when forced to choose, because electrical stimulation felt more focused than magnetic stimulation. Subjects experienced with TMS could correctly identify sham and active stimulation. Experimenters could detect subtle differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This method of sham rTMS closely mimics the look, sound, and feel of active stimulation at 1Hz without creating a significant magnetic field. It is valid for use with naïve subjects and in crossover studies. It can accommodate differences in scalp muscle recruitment at different sites of stimulation, and it could potentially be used with higher frequency stimulation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Most methods of sham, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) fail to replicate the look, sound, and feel of active stimulation in the absence of a significant magnetic field. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To develop and validate a new method of sham rTMS appropriate for a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with subject crossover. METHODS: The look and sound of active rTMS was replicated using a matched, air-cooled sham TMS coil. Scalp muscle stimulation associated with rTMS was replicated using large rubber electrodes placed over selected muscles. The intensity and pulse width of electrical stimulation necessary to match 1-Hz rTMS was developed in one sample of normal subjects. The sham technique was validated in back-to-back comparisons with active rTMS in new samples of normal subjects who were either naïve or experienced with rTMS. RESULTS: Subjects naïve to TMS could not tell which type of stimulation was active or sham or which was electrical or magnetic. Naïve subjects incorrectly picked sham stimulation as active, when forced to choose, because electrical stimulation felt more focused than magnetic stimulation. Subjects experienced with TMS could correctly identify sham and active stimulation. Experimenters could detect subtle differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This method of sham rTMS closely mimics the look, sound, and feel of active stimulation at 1Hz without creating a significant magnetic field. It is valid for use with naïve subjects and in crossover studies. It can accommodate differences in scalp muscle recruitment at different sites of stimulation, and it could potentially be used with higher frequency stimulation.
Authors: John P O'Reardon; H Brent Solvason; Philip G Janicak; Shirlene Sampson; Keith E Isenberg; Ziad Nahas; William M McDonald; David Avery; Paul B Fitzgerald; Colleen Loo; Mark A Demitrack; Mark S George; Harold A Sackeim Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: G A James; J D Thostenson; G Brown; G Carter; H Hayes; S P Tripathi; D J Dobry; R B Govindan; J L Dornhoffer; D K Williams; C D Kilts; M S Mennemeier Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Hamed Ekhtiari; Hosna Tavakoli; Giovanni Addolorato; Chris Baeken; Antonello Bonci; Salvatore Campanella; Luis Castelo-Branco; Gaëlle Challet-Bouju; Vincent P Clark; Eric Claus; Pinhas N Dannon; Alessandra Del Felice; Tess den Uyl; Marco Diana; Massimo di Giannantonio; John R Fedota; Paul Fitzgerald; Luigi Gallimberti; Marie Grall-Bronnec; Sarah C Herremans; Martin J Herrmann; Asif Jamil; Eman Khedr; Christos Kouimtsidis; Karolina Kozak; Evgeny Krupitsky; Claus Lamm; William V Lechner; Graziella Madeo; Nastaran Malmir; Giovanni Martinotti; William M McDonald; Chiara Montemitro; Ester M Nakamura-Palacios; Mohammad Nasehi; Xavier Noël; Masoud Nosratabadi; Martin Paulus; Mauro Pettorruso; Basant Pradhan; Samir K Praharaj; Haley Rafferty; Gregory Sahlem; Betty Jo Salmeron; Anne Sauvaget; Renée S Schluter; Carmen Sergiou; Alireza Shahbabaie; Christine Sheffer; Primavera A Spagnolo; Vaughn R Steele; Ti-Fei Yuan; Josanne D M van Dongen; Vincent Van Waes; Ganesan Venkatasubramanian; Antonio Verdejo-García; Ilse Verveer; Justine W Welsh; Michael J Wesley; Katie Witkiewitz; Fatemeh Yavari; Mohammad-Reza Zarrindast; Laurie Zawertailo; Xiaochu Zhang; Yoon-Hee Cha; Tony P George; Flavio Frohlich; Anna E Goudriaan; Shirley Fecteau; Stacey B Daughters; Elliot A Stein; Felipe Fregni; Michael A Nitsche; Abraham Zangen; Marom Bikson; Colleen A Hanlon Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Michael Landgrebe; Andréia Azevedo; David Baguley; Carol Bauer; Anthony Cacace; Claudia Coelho; John Dornhoffer; Ricardo Figueiredo; Herta Flor; Goeran Hajak; Paul van de Heyning; Wolfgang Hiller; Eman Khedr; Tobias Kleinjung; Michael Koller; Jose Miguel Lainez; Alain Londero; William H Martin; Mark Mennemeier; Jay Piccirillo; Dirk De Ridder; Rainer Rupprecht; Grant Searchfield; Sven Vanneste; Florian Zeman; Berthold Langguth Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Ralph E Hoffman; Kun Wu; Brian Pittman; John D Cahill; Keith A Hawkins; Thomas Fernandez; Jonas Hannestad Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Christine E Sheffer; Mark S Mennemeier; Reid D Landes; John Dornhoffer; Timothy Kimbrell; Warren K Bickel; Sharon Brackman; Kenneth C Chelette; Ginger Brown; Mai Vuong Journal: Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback Date: 2013-09
Authors: Prasad R Padala; Kalpana P Padala; Shelly Y Lensing; Andrea N Jackson; Cassandra R Hunter; Christopher M Parkes; Richard A Dennis; Melinda M Bopp; Ricardo Caceda; Mark S Mennemeier; Paula K Roberson; Dennis H Sullivan Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Bernadette T Gillick; Linda E Krach; Tim Feyma; Tonya L Rich; Kelli Moberg; Jeremiah Menk; Jessica Cassidy; Teresa Kimberley; James R Carey Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 3.966