Stefan M Goetz1, I Cassie Kozyrkov, Bruce Luber, Sarah H Lisanby, David L K Murphy, Warren M Grill, Angel V Peterchev. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, United States of America. Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, United States of America. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Robotic positioning systems for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) promise improved accuracy and stability of coil placement, but there is limited data on their performance. Investigate the usability, accuracy, and limitations of robotic coil placement with a commercial system, ANT Neuro, in a TMS study. APPROACH: 21 subjects underwent a total of 79 TMS sessions corresponding to 160 hours under robotic coil control. Coil position and orientation were monitored concurrently through an additional neuronavigation system. MAIN RESULTS: Robot setup took on average 14.5 min. The robot achieved low position and orientation error with median 3.54 mm (overall, 1.34 mm without coil-head spacing) and 3.48°. The error increased over time at a rate of 0.4%/minute for both position and orientation. SIGNIFICANCE: Robotic TMS systems can provide accurate and stable coil position and orientation in long TMS sessions. Lack of pressure feedback and of manual adjustment of all coil degrees of freedom were limitations of this robotic system.
OBJECTIVE: Robotic positioning systems for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) promise improved accuracy and stability of coil placement, but there is limited data on their performance. Investigate the usability, accuracy, and limitations of robotic coil placement with a commercial system, ANT Neuro, in a TMS study. APPROACH: 21 subjects underwent a total of 79 TMS sessions corresponding to 160 hours under robotic coil control. Coil position and orientation were monitored concurrently through an additional neuronavigation system. MAIN RESULTS: Robot setup took on average 14.5 min. The robot achieved low position and orientation error with median 3.54 mm (overall, 1.34 mm without coil-head spacing) and 3.48°. The error increased over time at a rate of 0.4%/minute for both position and orientation. SIGNIFICANCE: Robotic TMS systems can provide accurate and stable coil position and orientation in long TMS sessions. Lack of pressure feedback and of manual adjustment of all coil degrees of freedom were limitations of this robotic system.
Authors: Jack L Lancaster; Shalini Narayana; Dennis Wenzel; James Luckemeyer; John Roby; Peter Fox Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Lucile Zorn; Pierre Renaud; Bernard Bayle; Laurent Goffin; Cyrille Lebossé; Michel de Mathelin; Jack Foucher Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Stefan M Goetz; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby; David L K Murphy; I Cassie Kozyrkov; Warren M Grill; Angel V Peterchev Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Stefan M Goetz; Bryan Howell; Boshuo Wang; Zhongxi Li; Marc A Sommer; Angel V Peterchev; Warren M Grill Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Adrianna Giuffre; Ephrem Zewdie; Helen L Carlson; James G Wrightson; Hsing-Ching Kuo; Lauran Cole; Adam Kirton Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2021-04
Authors: Jaakko O Nieminen; Heikki Sinisalo; Victor H Souza; Mikko Malmi; Mikhail Yuryev; Aino E Tervo; Matti Stenroos; Diego Milardovich; Juuso T Korhonen; Lari M Koponen; Risto J Ilmoniemi Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-11-21 Impact factor: 9.184
Authors: Hsing-Ching Kuo; Ephrem Zewdie; Adrianna Giuffre; Liu Shi Gan; Helen L Carlson; James Wrightson; Adam Kirton Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 5.399
Authors: Bin Su; Yanbing Jia; Li Zhang; Duo Li; Qianqian Shen; Chun Wang; Yating Chen; Fanglan Gao; Jing Wei; Guilan Huang; Hao Liu; Lin Wang Journal: Front Neural Circuits Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 3.342