OBJECTIVE: To present a systematic framework and exemplar for the development of a compact and energy-efficient coil that replicates the electric field (E-field) distribution induced by an existing transcranial magnetic stimulation coil. APPROACH: The E-field generated by a conventional low field magnetic stimulation (LFMS) coil was measured for a spherical head model and simulated in both spherical and realistic head models. Then, using a spherical head model and spatial harmonic decomposition, a spherical-shaped cap coil was synthesized such that its windings conformed to a spherical surface and replicated the E-field on the cortical surface while requiring less energy. A prototype coil was built and electrically characterized. The effect of constraining the windings to the upper half of the head was also explored via an alternative coil design. MAIN RESULTS: The LFMS E-field distribution resembled that of a large double-cone coil, with a peak field strength around 350 mV m-1 in the cortex. The E-field distributions of the cap coil designs were validated against the original coil, with mean errors of 1%-3%. The cap coil required as little as 2% of the original coil energy and was significantly smaller in size. SIGNIFICANCE: The redesigned LFMS coil is substantially smaller and more energy-efficient than the original, improving cost, power consumption, and portability. These improvements could facilitate deployment of LFMS in the clinic and potentially at home. This coil redesign approach can also be applied to other magnetic stimulation paradigms. Finally, the anatomically-accurate E-field simulation of LFMS can be used to interpret clinical LFMS data.
OBJECTIVE: To present a systematic framework and exemplar for the development of a compact and energy-efficient coil that replicates the electric field (E-field) distribution induced by an existing transcranial magnetic stimulation coil. APPROACH: The E-field generated by a conventional low field magnetic stimulation (LFMS) coil was measured for a spherical head model and simulated in both spherical and realistic head models. Then, using a spherical head model and spatial harmonic decomposition, a spherical-shaped cap coil was synthesized such that its windings conformed to a spherical surface and replicated the E-field on the cortical surface while requiring less energy. A prototype coil was built and electrically characterized. The effect of constraining the windings to the upper half of the head was also explored via an alternative coil design. MAIN RESULTS: The LFMS E-field distribution resembled that of a large double-cone coil, with a peak field strength around 350 mV m-1 in the cortex. The E-field distributions of the cap coil designs were validated against the original coil, with mean errors of 1%-3%. The cap coil required as little as 2% of the original coil energy and was significantly smaller in size. SIGNIFICANCE: The redesigned LFMS coil is substantially smaller and more energy-efficient than the original, improving cost, power consumption, and portability. These improvements could facilitate deployment of LFMS in the clinic and potentially at home. This coil redesign approach can also be applied to other magnetic stimulation paradigms. Finally, the anatomically-accurate E-field simulation of LFMS can be used to interpret clinical LFMS data.
Authors: Marta Parazzini; Serena Fiocchi; Elena Rossi; Alessia Paglialonga; Paolo Ravazzani Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Marta Parazzini; Serena Fiocchi; Emma Chiaramello; Yiftach Roth; Abraham Zangen; Paolo Ravazzani Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 2.242
Authors: Lari M Koponen; Jaakko O Nieminen; Tuomas P Mutanen; Matti Stenroos; Risto J Ilmoniemi Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Zhi-De Deng; Bruce Luber; Nicholas L Balderston; Melbaliz Velez Afanador; Michelle M Noh; Jeena Thomas; William C Altekruse; Shannon L Exley; Shriya Awasthi; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 13.820
Authors: Marc J Dubin; Irena P Ilieva; Zhi-De Deng; Jeena Thomas; Ashly Cochran; Kamilla Kravets; Benjamin D Brody; Paul J Christos; James H Kocsis; Conor Liston; Faith M Gunning Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 4.839
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