Nicholas T Trapp1, Joel Bruss2, Marcie King Johnson3, Brandt D Uitermarkt4, Laren Garrett5, Amanda Heinzerling5, Chaorong Wu6, Timothy R Koscik5, Patrick Ten Eyck6, Aaron D Boes7. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. Electronic address: nicholas-trapp@uiowa.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 3. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 6. Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States; Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists in the clinical transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) field as to the best method for targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for depression treatment. Two common targeting methods are the Beam F3 method and the 5.5 cm rule. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the anatomical reliability of technician-identified DLPFC targets and obtain consensus average brain and scalp MNI152 coordinates. METHODS: Three trained TMS technicians performed repeated targeting using both the Beam F3 method and 5.5 cm rule in ten healthy subjects (n = 162). Average target locations were plotted on 7T structural MRIs to compare inter- and intra-rater reliability, respectively. RESULTS: (1) Beam F3 inter- and intra-rater reliability was superior to 5.5 cm targeting (p = 0.0005 and 0.0035). (2) The average Beam F3 location was 2.6±1.0 cm anterolateral to the 5.5 cm method. CONCLUSIONS: Beam F3 targeting demonstrates greater precision and reliability than the 5.5 cm method and identifies a different anatomical target.
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists in the clinical transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) field as to the best method for targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for depression treatment. Two common targeting methods are the Beam F3 method and the 5.5 cm rule. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the anatomical reliability of technician-identified DLPFC targets and obtain consensus average brain and scalp MNI152 coordinates. METHODS: Three trained TMS technicians performed repeated targeting using both the Beam F3 method and 5.5 cm rule in ten healthy subjects (n = 162). Average target locations were plotted on 7T structural MRIs to compare inter- and intra-rater reliability, respectively. RESULTS: (1) Beam F3 inter- and intra-rater reliability was superior to 5.5 cm targeting (p = 0.0005 and 0.0035). (2) The average Beam F3 location was 2.6±1.0 cm anterolateral to the 5.5 cm method. CONCLUSIONS: Beam F3 targeting demonstrates greater precision and reliability than the 5.5 cm method and identifies a different anatomical target.
Authors: U Herwig; C Schönfeldt-Lecuona; A P Wunderlich; C von Tiesenhausen; A Thielscher; H Walter; M Spitzer Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2001-11-30 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Cecilia Nauczyciel; Pierre Hellier; Xavier Morandi; Sophie Blestel; Dominique Drapier; Jean Christophe Ferre; Christian Barillot; Bruno Millet Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2010-08-07 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Mark S George; Sarah H Lisanby; David Avery; William M McDonald; Valerie Durkalski; Martina Pavlicova; Berry Anderson; Ziad Nahas; Peter Bulow; Paul Zarkowski; Paul E Holtzheimer; Theresa Schwartz; Harold A Sackeim Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-05
Authors: B T Thomas Yeo; Fenna M Krienen; Jorge Sepulcre; Mert R Sabuncu; Danial Lashkari; Marisa Hollinshead; Joshua L Roffman; Jordan W Smoller; Lilla Zöllei; Jonathan R Polimeni; Bruce Fischl; Hesheng Liu; Randy L Buckner Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Shawn M McClintock; Irving M Reti; Linda L Carpenter; William M McDonald; Marc Dubin; Stephan F Taylor; Ian A Cook; John O'Reardon; Mustafa M Husain; Christopher Wall; Andrew D Krystal; Shirlene M Sampson; Oscar Morales; Brent G Nelson; Vassilios Latoussakis; Mark S George; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: John P O'Reardon; H Brent Solvason; Philip G Janicak; Shirlene Sampson; Keith E Isenberg; Ziad Nahas; William M McDonald; David Avery; Paul B Fitzgerald; Colleen Loo; Mark A Demitrack; Mark S George; Harold A Sackeim Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Tarique Perera; Mark S George; Geoffrey Grammer; Philip G Janicak; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Theodore S Wirecki Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Alexander Schaefer; Ru Kong; Evan M Gordon; Timothy O Laumann; Xi-Nian Zuo; Avram J Holmes; Simon B Eickhoff; B T Thomas Yeo Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Arsalan Mir-Moghtadaei; Ruth Caballero; Peter Fried; Michael D Fox; Katherine Lee; Peter Giacobbe; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger; Jonathan Downar Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Nathen A Spitz; Patrick Ten Eyck; Krystal Nizar; Aaron D Boes; Nicholas T Trapp Journal: J Psychiatr Pract Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 1.841
Authors: Leanne M Williams; John T Coman; Patrick C Stetz; Nicole C Walker; F Andrew Kozel; Mark S George; Jong Yoon; Laura M Hack; Michelle R Madore; Kelvin O Lim; Noah S Philip; Paul E Holtzheimer Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Benjamin A Parris; Michael G Wadsley; Gizem Arabaci; Nabil Hasshim; Maria Augustinova; Ludovic Ferrand Journal: Brain Struct Funct Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 3.270
Authors: V A Cardenas; J V Bhat; A M Horwege; T J Ehrlich; J Lavacot; D H Mathalon; G H Glover; B J Roach; B W Badran; S D Forman; M S George; M E Thase; J A Yesavage; D Yurgelun-Todd; A C Rosen Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 8.955