Literature DB >> 23114213

Biophysical determinants of transcranial magnetic stimulation: effects of excitability and depth of targeted area.

Mark G Stokes1, Anthony T Barker, Martynas Dervinis, Frederick Verbruggen, Leah Maizey, Rachel C Adams, Christopher D Chambers.   

Abstract

Safe and effective transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) requires accurate intensity calibration. Output is typically calibrated to individual motor cortex excitability and applied to nonmotor brain areas, assuming that it captures a site nonspecific factor of excitability. We tested this assumption by correlating the effect of TMS at motor and visual cortex. In 30 participants, we measured motor threshold (MT) and phosphene threshold (PT) at the scalp surface and at coil-scalp distances of 3.17, 5.63, and 9.03 mm. We also modeled the effect of TMS in a simple head model to test the effect of distance. Four independent tests confirmed a significant correlation between PT and MT. We also found similar effects of distance in motor and visual areas, which did not correlate across participants. Computational modeling suggests that the relationship between the effect of distance and the induced electric field is effectively linear within the range of distances that have been explored empirically. We conclude that MT-guided calibration is valid for nonmotor brain areas if coil-cortex distance is taken into account. For standard figure-of-eight TMS coils connected to biphasic stimulators, the effect of cortical distance should be adjusted using a general correction factor of 2.7% stimulator output per millimeter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23114213      PMCID: PMC3545458          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00510.2012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  32 in total

1.  The navigation of transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  U Herwig; C Schönfeldt-Lecuona; A P Wunderlich; C von Tiesenhausen; A Thielscher; H Walter; M Spitzer
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2001-11-30       Impact factor: 3.222

2.  Using the international 10-20 EEG system for positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Uwe Herwig; Peyman Satrapi; Carlos Schönfeldt-Lecuona
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.020

3.  Simple metric for scaling motor threshold based on scalp-cortex distance: application to studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Mark G Stokes; Christopher D Chambers; Ian C Gould; Tracy R Henderson; Natasha E Janko; Nicholas B Allen; Jason B Mattingley
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the challenge of coil placement: a comparison of conventional and stereotaxic neuronavigational strategies.

Authors:  Roland Sparing; Dorothee Buelte; Ingo G Meister; Tomás Paus; Gereon R Fink
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Reliability of the 'observation of movement' method for determining motor threshold using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Alice Varnava; Mark G Stokes; Christopher D Chambers
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.390

6.  Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5-7, 1996.

Authors:  E M Wassermann
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-01

7.  Corticomotor threshold to magnetic stimulation: normal values and repeatability.

Authors:  K R Mills; K A Nithi
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 3.217

Review 8.  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

9.  Optimizing functional accuracy of TMS in cognitive studies: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  Alexander T Sack; Roi Cohen Kadosh; Teresa Schuhmann; Michelle Moerel; Vincent Walsh; Rainer Goebel
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  The cortical site of visual suppression by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  A Thielscher; A Reichenbach; K Uğurbil; K Uludağ
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 5.357

View more
  29 in total

1.  The Impact of Stimulation Intensity and Coil Type on Reliability and Tolerability of Cerebellar Brain Inhibition (CBI) via Dual-Coil TMS.

Authors:  Lara Fernandez; Brendan P Major; Wei-Peng Teo; Linda K Byrne; Peter G Enticott
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.847

2.  Individual Differences in Resting Corticospinal Excitability Are Correlated with Reaction Time and GABA Content in Motor Cortex.

Authors:  Ian Greenhouse; Maedbh King; Sean Noah; Richard J Maddock; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 3.  Neurodoping: brain stimulation as a performance-enhancing measure.

Authors:  Nick J Davis
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Single pulse TMS to the DLPFC, compared to a matched sham control, induces a direct, causal increase in caudate, cingulate, and thalamic BOLD signal.

Authors:  Logan T Dowdle; Truman R Brown; Mark S George; Colleen A Hanlon
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2018-02-24       Impact factor: 8.955

5.  Left frontal pole theta burst stimulation decreases orbitofrontal and insula activity in cocaine users and alcohol users.

Authors:  Colleen A Hanlon; Logan T Dowdle; Brittany Correia; Oliver Mithoefer; Tonisha Kearney-Ramos; Daniel Lench; Millie Griffin; Raymond F Anton; Mark S George
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 4.492

6.  N100 as a generic cortical electrophysiological marker based on decomposition of TMS-evoked potentials across five anatomic locations.

Authors:  Xiaoming Du; Fow-Sen Choa; Ann Summerfelt; Laura M Rowland; Joshua Chiappelli; Peter Kochunov; L Elliot Hong
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Impact of non-brain anatomy and coil orientation on inter- and intra-subject variability in TMS at midline.

Authors:  Erik G Lee; Priyam Rastogi; Ravi L Hadimani; David C Jiles; Joan A Camprodon
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  The Effects of Waveform and Current Direction on the Efficacy and Test-Retest Reliability of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Paula Davila-Pérez; Ali Jannati; Peter J Fried; Javier Cudeiro Mazaira; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-10-06       Impact factor: 3.590

9.  Prediction of Force Recruitment of Neuromuscular Magnetic Stimulation From 3D Field Model of the Thigh.

Authors:  Stefan Goetz; Joerg Kammermann; Florian Helling; Thomas Weyh; Zhongxi Li
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.528

Review 10.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a potential treatment approach for cannabis use disorder.

Authors:  Tonisha Kearney-Ramos; Margaret Haney
Journal:  Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 5.201

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.