Erik G Lee1, Priyam Rastogi2, Ravi L Hadimani3, David C Jiles4, Joan A Camprodon5. 1. Laboratory for Neuropsychiatry and Neuromodulation, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 149 13th Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02129, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University, 2520 Osborne Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Electronic address: erik.lee.mn@gmail.com. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University, 2520 Osborne Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Electronic address: priyamr@iastate.edu. 3. Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 401 West Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23284, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University, 2520 Osborne Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Electronic address: rhadimani@vcu.edu. 4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University, 2520 Osborne Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Electronic address: dcjiles@iastate.edu. 5. Laboratory for Neuropsychiatry and Neuromodulation, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 149 13th Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02129, USA. Electronic address: jcamprodon@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate inter-subject variability with respect to cerebrospinal fluid thickness and brain-scalp distance, and to investigate intra-subject variability with different coil orientations. METHODS: Simulations of the induced electric field (E-Field) using a figure-8 coil over the vertex were conducted on 50 unique head models and varying orientations on 25 models. Metrics exploring stimulation intensity, spread, and localization were used to describe inter-subject variability and effects of non-brain anatomy. RESULTS: Both brain-scalp distance and CSF thickness were correlated with weaker stimulation intensity and greater spread. Coil rotations show that for the dorsal portion of the stimulated brain, E-Field intensities are highest when the anterior-posterior axis of the coil is perpendicular to the longitudinal fissure, but highest for the medial portion of the stimulated brain when the coil is oriented parallel to the longitudinal fissure. CONCLUSIONS: Normal anatomical variation in healthy individuals leads to significant differences in the site of TMS, the intensity, and the spread. These variables are generally neglected but could explain significant variability in basic and clinical studies. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first work to show how brain-scalp distance and cerebrospinal fluid thickness influence focality, and to show the disassociation between dorsal and medial TMS.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate inter-subject variability with respect to cerebrospinal fluid thickness and brain-scalp distance, and to investigate intra-subject variability with different coil orientations. METHODS: Simulations of the induced electric field (E-Field) using a figure-8 coil over the vertex were conducted on 50 unique head models and varying orientations on 25 models. Metrics exploring stimulation intensity, spread, and localization were used to describe inter-subject variability and effects of non-brain anatomy. RESULTS: Both brain-scalp distance and CSF thickness were correlated with weaker stimulation intensity and greater spread. Coil rotations show that for the dorsal portion of the stimulated brain, E-Field intensities are highest when the anterior-posterior axis of the coil is perpendicular to the longitudinal fissure, but highest for the medial portion of the stimulated brain when the coil is oriented parallel to the longitudinal fissure. CONCLUSIONS: Normal anatomical variation in healthy individuals leads to significant differences in the site of TMS, the intensity, and the spread. These variables are generally neglected but could explain significant variability in basic and clinical studies. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first work to show how brain-scalp distance and cerebrospinal fluid thickness influence focality, and to show the disassociation between dorsal and medial TMS.
Authors: M Oliveri; C Babiloni; M M Filippi; C Caltagirone; F Babiloni; P Cicinelli; R Traversa; M G Palmieri; P M Rossini Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2003-01-25 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Danhong Wang; Randy L Buckner; Michael D Fox; Daphne J Holt; Avram J Holmes; Sophia Stoecklein; Georg Langs; Ruiqi Pan; Tianyi Qian; Kuncheng Li; Justin T Baker; Steven M Stufflebeam; Kai Wang; Xiaomin Wang; Bo Hong; Hesheng Liu Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Aung Thu Htet; Guilherme B Saturnino; Edward H Burnham; Gregory M Noetscher; Aapo Nummenmaa; Sergey N Makarov Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Neil Mittal; Bhushan Thakkar; Cooper B Hodges; Connor Lewis; Yeajin Cho; Ravi L Hadimani; Carrie L Peterson Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 5.399
Authors: Marietta Tzirini; Yiftach Roth; Tal Harmelech; Samuel Zibman; Gaby S Pell; Vasilios K Kimiskidis; Aron Tendler; Abraham Zangen; Theodoros Samaras Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.752