J Evan Smith1, Angel V Peterchev. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sham TMS coils isolate the ancillary effects of their active counterparts but typically induce low-strength electric fields (E-fields) in the brain, which could be biologically active. We measured the E-fields induced by two pairs of commonly-used commercial active/sham coils. APPROACH: E-field distributions of the active and sham configurations of the Magstim 70 mm AFC and MagVenture Cool-B65 A/P coils were measured over a 7 cm-radius, hemispherical grid approximating the cortical surface. Peak E-field strength was recorded over a range of pulse amplitudes. MAIN RESULTS: The Magstim and MagVenture shams induce peak E-fields corresponding to 25.3% and 7.72% of their respective active values. The MagVenture sham has an E-field distribution shaped like its active counterpart. The Magstim sham induces nearly zero E-field under the coil's center, and its peak E-field forms a diffuse oval 3-7 cm from the center. Electrical scalp stimulation paired with the MagVenture sham is estimated to increase the sham E-field in the brain up to 10%. SIGNIFICANCE: Different commercial shams induce different E-field strengths and distributions in the brain, which should be considered in interpreting outcomes of sham stimulation.
OBJECTIVE: Sham TMS coils isolate the ancillary effects of their active counterparts but typically induce low-strength electric fields (E-fields) in the brain, which could be biologically active. We measured the E-fields induced by two pairs of commonly-used commercial active/sham coils. APPROACH: E-field distributions of the active and sham configurations of the Magstim 70 mm AFC and MagVenture Cool-B65 A/P coils were measured over a 7 cm-radius, hemispherical grid approximating the cortical surface. Peak E-field strength was recorded over a range of pulse amplitudes. MAIN RESULTS: The Magstim and MagVenture shams induce peak E-fields corresponding to 25.3% and 7.72% of their respective active values. The MagVenture sham has an E-field distribution shaped like its active counterpart. The Magstim sham induces nearly zero E-field under the coil's center, and its peak E-field forms a diffuse oval 3-7 cm from the center. Electrical scalp stimulation paired with the MagVenture sham is estimated to increase the sham E-field in the brain up to 10%. SIGNIFICANCE: Different commercial shams induce different E-field strengths and distributions in the brain, which should be considered in interpreting outcomes of sham stimulation.
Authors: Michael L Rohan; Rinah T Yamamoto; Caitlin T Ravichandran; Kenroy R Cayetano; Oscar G Morales; David P Olson; Gordana Vitaliano; Steven M Paul; Bruce M Cohen Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Ashley B Arana; Jeffery J Borckardt; Raffaella Ricci; Berry Anderson; Xingbao Li; Katherine J Linder; James Long; Harold A Sackeim; Mark S George Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Michael Rohan; Aimee Parow; Andrew L Stoll; Christina Demopulos; Seth Friedman; Stephen Dager; John Hennen; Bruce M Cohen; Perry F Renshaw Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Mei Hong Xiu; Heng Yong Guan; Jian Min Zhao; Ke Qiang Wang; Yan Fen Pan; Xiu Ru Su; Yu Hong Wang; Jin Ming Guo; Long Jiang; Hong Yu Liu; Shi Guang Sun; Hao Ran Wu; Han Song Geng; Xiao Wen Liu; Hui Jing Yu; Bao Chun Wei; Xi Po Li; Tammy Trinh; Shu Ping Tan; Xiang Yang Zhang Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Olga Lucia Gamboa; Alexandra Brito; Zachary Abzug; Tracy D'Arbeloff; Lysianne Beynel; Erik A Wing; Moritz Dannhauer; Hannah Palmer; Susan A Hilbig; Courtney A Crowell; Sicong Liu; Rachel Donaldson; Roberto Cabeza; Simon W Davis; Angel V Peterchev; Marc A Sommer; Lawrence G Appelbaum Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Lysianne Beynel; Simon W Davis; Courtney A Crowell; Moritz Dannhauer; Wesley Lim; Hannah Palmer; Susan A Hilbig; Alexandra Brito; Connor Hile; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby; Angel V Peterchev; Roberto Cabeza; Lawrence G Appelbaum Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Lysianne Beynel; Moritz Dannhauer; Hannah Palmer; Susan A Hilbig; Courtney A Crowell; Joyce E-H Wang; Andrew M Michael; Eleanor A Wood; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby; Angel V Peterchev; Roberto Cabeza; Simon W Davis; Lawrence G Appelbaum Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Heng Yong Guan; Jian Min Zhao; Ke Qiang Wang; Xiu Ru Su; Yan Fen Pan; Jin Ming Guo; Long Jiang; Yu Hong Wang; Hong Yu Liu; Shi Guang Sun; Hao Ran Wu; Yan Ping Ren; Han Song Geng; Xiao Wen Liu; Hui Jing Yu; Bao Chun Wei; Xi Po Li; Hanjing Emily Wu; Shu Ping Tan; Mei Hong Xiu; Xiang Yang Zhang Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 6.222