Danny Spampinato1, Jaime Ibáñez2, Manos Spanoudakis3, Paul Hammond3, John C Rothwell3. 1. Department for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: d.spampinato@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom; Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stimulating the cerebellum with transcranial magnetic stimulation is often perceived as uncomfortable. No study has systematically tested which coil design can effectively trigger a cerebellar response with the least discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between perceived discomfort and effectiveness of cerebellar stimulation using different coils: MagStim (70 mm, 110 mm-coated, 110-uncoated), MagVenture and Deymed. METHODS: Using the cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI) protocol, we conducted a CBI recruitment curve with respect to each participant's maximum tolerated-stimulus intensity (MTI) to assess how effective each coil was at activating the cerebellum. RESULTS: Only the Deymed double-cone coil elicited CBI at low intensities (-20% MTI). At the MTI, the MagStim (110 mm coated/uncoated) and Deymed coils produced reliable CBI, whereas no CBI was found with the MagVenture coil. CONCLUSION: s: The Deymed double-cone coil was most effective at cerebellar stimulation at tolerable intensities. These results can guide coil selection and stimulation parameters when designing cerebellar TMS studies. Crown
BACKGROUND: Stimulating the cerebellum with transcranial magnetic stimulation is often perceived as uncomfortable. No study has systematically tested which coil design can effectively trigger a cerebellar response with the least discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between perceived discomfort and effectiveness of cerebellar stimulation using different coils: MagStim (70 mm, 110 mm-coated, 110-uncoated), MagVenture and Deymed. METHODS: Using the cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI) protocol, we conducted a CBI recruitment curve with respect to each participant's maximum tolerated-stimulus intensity (MTI) to assess how effective each coil was at activating the cerebellum. RESULTS: Only the Deymed double-cone coil elicited CBI at low intensities (-20% MTI). At the MTI, the MagStim (110 mm coated/uncoated) and Deymed coils produced reliable CBI, whereas no CBI was found with the MagVenture coil. CONCLUSION: s: The Deymed double-cone coil was most effective at cerebellar stimulation at tolerable intensities. These results can guide coil selection and stimulation parameters when designing cerebellar TMS studies. Crown