BACKGROUND: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is based on a changing magnetic field inducing an electric field in the brain. Conventionally, the TMS coil is mounted to a static holder and the subject is asked to avoid head motion. Additionally, head resting frames have been used. In contrast, our robotized TMS system employs active motion compensation (MC) to maintain the correct coil position. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We study the effect of patient motion on TMS. In particular, we compare different coil positioning techniques with respect to the induced electric field. METHODS: We recorded head motion for six subjects in three scenarios: (a) avoiding head motion, (b) using a head rest, and (c) moving the head freely. Subsequently, the motion traces were replayed using a second robot to move a sensor to measure the electric field in the target region. These head movements were combined with 2 types of coil positioning: (1) using a coil holder and (2) using robotized TMS with MC. RESULTS: After 30 min the induced electric field was reduced by 32.0% and 19.7% for scenarios (1a) and (1b), respectively. For scenarios (2a)-(2c) it was reduced by only 4.9%, 1.4% and 2.0%, respectively, which is a significant improvement (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the orientation of the induced field changed by 5.5°, 7.6°, 0.4°, 0.2°, 0.2° for scenarios (1a)-(2c). CONCLUSION: While none of the scenarios required rigid head fixation, using a simple holder to position a coil during TMS can lead to substantial deviations in the induced electric field. In contrast, robotic motion compensation results in clinically acceptable positioning throughout treatment.
BACKGROUND: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is based on a changing magnetic field inducing an electric field in the brain. Conventionally, the TMS coil is mounted to a static holder and the subject is asked to avoid head motion. Additionally, head resting frames have been used. In contrast, our robotized TMS system employs active motion compensation (MC) to maintain the correct coil position. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We study the effect of patient motion on TMS. In particular, we compare different coil positioning techniques with respect to the induced electric field. METHODS: We recorded head motion for six subjects in three scenarios: (a) avoiding head motion, (b) using a head rest, and (c) moving the head freely. Subsequently, the motion traces were replayed using a second robot to move a sensor to measure the electric field in the target region. These head movements were combined with 2 types of coil positioning: (1) using a coil holder and (2) using robotized TMS with MC. RESULTS: After 30 min the induced electric field was reduced by 32.0% and 19.7% for scenarios (1a) and (1b), respectively. For scenarios (2a)-(2c) it was reduced by only 4.9%, 1.4% and 2.0%, respectively, which is a significant improvement (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the orientation of the induced field changed by 5.5°, 7.6°, 0.4°, 0.2°, 0.2° for scenarios (1a)-(2c). CONCLUSION: While none of the scenarios required rigid head fixation, using a simple holder to position a coil during TMS can lead to substantial deviations in the induced electric field. In contrast, robotic motion compensation results in clinically acceptable positioning throughout treatment.
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
Authors: Stefan M Goetz; I Cassie Kozyrkov; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby; David L K Murphy; Warren M Grill; Angel V Peterchev Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Simone Rossi; Andrea Antal; Sven Bestmann; Marom Bikson; Carmen Brewer; Jürgen Brockmöller; Linda L Carpenter; Massimo Cincotta; Robert Chen; Jeff D Daskalakis; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Michael D Fox; Mark S George; Donald Gilbert; Vasilios K Kimiskidis; Giacomo Koch; Risto J Ilmoniemi; Jean Pascal Lefaucheur; Letizia Leocani; Sarah H Lisanby; Carlo Miniussi; Frank Padberg; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Walter Paulus; Angel V Peterchev; Angelo Quartarone; Alexander Rotenberg; John Rothwell; Paolo M Rossini; Emiliano Santarnecchi; Mouhsin M Shafi; Hartwig R Siebner; Yoshikatzu Ugawa; Eric M Wassermann; Abraham Zangen; Ulf Ziemann; Mark Hallett Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 4.861