OBJECTIVE: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a well-established clinical protocol with numerous potential therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Yet, much work remains in the elucidation of TMS mechanisms, optimization of protocols, and in development of novel therapeutic applications. As with many technologies, the key to these issues lies in the proper experimentation and translation of TMS methods to animal models, among which rat models have proven popular. A significant increase in the number of rat TMS publications has necessitated analysis of their relevance to human work. We therefore review the essential principles for the approximation of human TMS protocols in rats as well as specific methods that addressed these issues in published studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an English language literature search combined with our own experience and data. We address issues that we see as important in the translation of human TMS methods to rat models and provide a summary of key accomplishments in these areas. RESULTS: An extensive literature review illustrated the growth of rodent TMS studies in recent years. Current advances in the translation of single, paired-pulse, and repetitive stimulation paradigms to rodent models are presented. The importance of TMS in the generation of data for preclinical trials is also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Rat TMS has several limitations when considering parallels between animal and human stimulation. However, it has proven to be a useful tool in the field of translational brain stimulation and will likely continue to aid in the design and implementation of stimulation protocols for therapeutic and diagnostic applications.
OBJECTIVE: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a well-established clinical protocol with numerous potential therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Yet, much work remains in the elucidation of TMS mechanisms, optimization of protocols, and in development of novel therapeutic applications. As with many technologies, the key to these issues lies in the proper experimentation and translation of TMS methods to animal models, among which rat models have proven popular. A significant increase in the number of rat TMS publications has necessitated analysis of their relevance to human work. We therefore review the essential principles for the approximation of human TMS protocols in rats as well as specific methods that addressed these issues in published studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an English language literature search combined with our own experience and data. We address issues that we see as important in the translation of human TMS methods to rat models and provide a summary of key accomplishments in these areas. RESULTS: An extensive literature review illustrated the growth of rodent TMS studies in recent years. Current advances in the translation of single, paired-pulse, and repetitive stimulation paradigms to rodent models are presented. The importance of TMS in the generation of data for preclinical trials is also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Rat TMS has several limitations when considering parallels between animal and human stimulation. However, it has proven to be a useful tool in the field of translational brain stimulation and will likely continue to aid in the design and implementation of stimulation protocols for therapeutic and diagnostic applications.
Authors: Alia Benali; Jörn Trippe; Elke Weiler; Annika Mix; Elisabeth Petrasch-Parwez; Wolfgang Girzalsky; Ulf T Eysel; Ralf Erdmann; Klaus Funke Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Yi Ping Zhang; Lisa B E Shields; Yongjie Zhang; Jiong Pei; Xiao-Ming Xu; Rachel Hoskins; Jun Cai; Meng Sheng Qiu; David S K Magnuson; Darlene A Burke; Christopher B Shields Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Andreas R Luft; Alain Kaelin-Lang; Till-Karsten Hauser; Manuel M Buitrago; Nitish V Thakor; Daniel F Hanley; Leonardo G Cohen Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2002-01-19 Impact factor: 1.972
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: Alexander Rotenberg; Paul A Muller; Andrew M Vahabzadeh-Hagh; Xavier Navarro; Rubèn López-Vales; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Frances Jensen Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2009-11-08 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Ugur Damar; Roman Gersner; Joshua T Johnstone; Kush Kapur; Stephen Collins; Steven Schachter; Alexander Rotenberg Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Colleen A Hanlon; William DeVries; Logan T Dowdle; Julia A West; Bradley Siekman; Xingbao Li; Mark S George Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 4.492
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
Authors: Paul A Muller; Sameer C Dhamne; Andrew M Vahabzadeh-Hagh; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Frances E Jensen; Alexander Rotenberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 3.240