CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation: the role of coil geometry and tissue depth

Open access
Hardwick, Robert M., Lesage, Elise, Miall, R. Chris·2014·Brain Stimulation
DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2014.04.009PMC PMC4180011
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil geometry has important effects on the evoked magnetic field, no study has systematically examined how different coil designs affect the effectiveness of cerebellar stimulation. HYPOTHESIS: The depth of the cerebellar targets will limit efficiency. Angled coils designed to stimulate deeper tissue are more effective in eliciting cerebellar stimulation. METHODS: Experiment 1 examined basic input-output properties of the figure-of-eight, batwing and double-cone coils, assessed with stimulation of motor cortex. Experiment 2 assessed the ability of each coil to activate cerebellum, using cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI). Experiment 3 mapped distances from the scalp to cerebellar and motor cortical targets in a sample of 100 subjects' structural magnetic resonance images. RESULTS: Experiment 1 showed batwing and double-cone coils have significantly lower resting motor thresholds, and recruitment curves with steeper slopes than the figure-of-eight coil. Experiment 2 showed the double-cone coil was the most efficient for eliciting CBI. The batwing coil induced CBI only at higher stimulus intensities. The figure-of-eight coil did not elicit reliable CBI. Experiment 3 confirmed that cerebellar tissue is significantly deeper than primary motor cortex tissue, and we provide a map of scalp-to-target distances. CONCLUSIONS: The double-cone and batwing coils designed to stimulate deeper tissue can effectively stimulate cerebellar targets. The double-cone coil was found to be most effective. The depth map provides a guide to the accessible regions of the cerebellar volume. These results can guide coil selection and stimulation parameters when designing cerebellar TMS studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brs.2014.04.009

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 37 · Cited by 169

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. [1]Grimaldi G. Argyropoulos G.P. Boehringer A. Non-invasive cerebellar stimulation – a consensus paper Cerebellum 13 2014 121 138 23943521
  2. [2]Stokes M.G. Chambers C.D. Gould I.C. Simple metric for scaling motor threshold based on scalp-cortex distance: application to studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation J Neurophysiol 94 2005 4520 4527 16135552
  3. [3]Stokes M.G. Chambers C.D. Gould I.C. Distance-adjusted motor threshold for transcranial magnetic stimulation Clin Neurophysiol 118 2007 1617 1625 17524764
  4. [4]Cai W. George J.S. Chambers C.D. Stimulating deep cortical structures with the batwing coil: how to determine the intensity for transcranial magnetic stimulation using coil-cortex distance J Neurosci Methods 204 2012 238 241 22138632 PMC3633572
  5. [5]Deng Z.D. Lisanby S.H. Peterchev A.V. Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs Brain Stimul 6 2013 1 13 22483681 PMC3568257
  6. [6]Galea J.M. Jayaram G. Ajagbe L. Celnik P. Modulation of cerebellar excitability by polarity-specific noninvasive direct current stimulation J Neurosci 29 2009 9115 9122 19605648 PMC2760225
  7. [7]Ugawa Y. Uesaka Y. Terao Y. Hanajima R. Kanazawa I. Magnetic stimulation over the cerebellum in humans Ann Neurol 37 1995 703 713 7778843
  8. [8]Pinto A.D. Chen R. Suppression of the motor cortex by magnetic stimulation of the cerebellum Exp Brain Res 140 2001 505 510 11685404
  9. [9]Daskalakis Z.J. Paradiso G.O. Christensen B.K. Exploring the connectivity between the cerebellum and motor cortex in humans J Physiol 557 2004 689 700 15047772 PMC1665103
  10. [10]Werhahn K.J. Taylor J. Ridding M. Meyer B.U. Rothwell J.C. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation over the cerebellum on the excitability of human motor cortex Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 101 1996 58 66 8625878
  11. [11]Fisher K.M. Lai H.M. Baker M.R. Baker S.N. Corticospinal activation confounds cerebellar effects of posterior fossa stimuli Clin Neurophysiol 120 2009 2109 2113 19836995 PMC2852652
  12. [13]Miall R.C. King D. State estimation in the cerebellum Cerebellum 7 2008 572 576 18855092 PMC6010151
  13. [14]Panouillères M. Neggers S.F. Guttelin T.P. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and motor plasticity in human lateral cerebellum: dual effect on saccadic adaptation Hum Brain Mapp 33 2012 1512 1525 21692144 PMC6870392
  14. [15]Popa T. Russo M. Meunier S. Long-lasting inhibition of cerebellar output Brain Stimul 3 2010 161 169 20633445
  15. [16]Demirtas-Tatlidede A. Freitas C. Pascual-Leone A. Schmahmann J.D. Modulatory effects of theta burst stimulation on cerebellar nonsomatic functions Cerebellum 10 2011 495 503 21132574 PMC3260524
  16. [17]Koch G. Mori F. Marconi B. Changes in intracortical circuits of the human motor cortex following theta burst stimulation of the lateral cerebellum Clin Neurophysiol 119 2008 2559 2569 18824403
  17. [18]Théoret H. Haque J. Pascual-Leone A. Increased variability of paced finger tapping accuracy following repetitive magnetic stimulation of the cerebellum in humans Neurosci Lett 306 2001 29 32 11403950
  18. [19]Grube M. Lee K.H. Griffiths T.D. Barker A.T. Woodruff P.W. Transcranial magnetic theta-burst stimulation of the human cerebellum distinguishes absolute, duration-based from relative, beat-based perception of subsecond time intervals Front Psychol 1 2010 171 21833234 PMC3153783
  19. [21]Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer Neuron 55 2007 187 199 17640522
  20. [22]Guzmán-López J. Costa J. Selvi A. The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on vibratory-induced presynaptic inhibition of the soleus H reflex Exp Brain Res 220 2012 223 230 22644238
  21. [23]Biswal B.B. Mennes M. Zuo X.N. Toward discovery science of human brain function Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107 2010 4734 4739 20176931 PMC2842060
  22. [24]Kleim J.A. Kleim E.D. Cramer S.C. Systematic assessment of training-induced changes in corticospinal output to hand using frameless stereotaxic transcranial magnetic stimulation Nat Protoc 2 2007 1675 1684 17641632
  23. [25]Rosenkranz K. Williamon A. Rothwell J.C. Motorcortical excitability and synaptic plasticity is enhanced in professional musicians J Neurosci 27 2007 5200 5206 17494706 PMC6672373
  24. [26]Zhang X. de Beukelaar T.T. Possel J. Movement observation improves early consolidation of motor memory J Neurosci 31 2011 11515 11520 21832181 PMC6623117
  25. [27]Hardwick R.M. McAllister C.J. Holmes P.S. Edwards M.G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals modulation of corticospinal excitability when observing actions with the intention to imitate Eur J Neurosci 35 2012 1475 1480 22519854
  26. [28]Diedrichsen J. A spatially unbiased atlas template of the human cerebellum Neuroimage 33 2006 127 138 16904911
  27. [29]Diedrichsen J. Balsters J.H. Flavell J. Cussans E. Ramnani N. A probabilistic MR atlas of the human cerebellum Neuroimage 46 2009 39 46 19457380
  28. [30]Buckner R.L. Krienen F.M. Castellanos A. Diaz J.C. Yeo B.T.T. The organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity J Neurophysiol 106 2011 2322 2345 21795627 PMC3214121
  29. [31]Peterchev A.V. Goetz S.M. Westin G.G. Luber B. Lisanby S.H. Pulse width dependence of motor threshold and input-output curve characterized with controllable pulse parameter transcranial magnetic stimulation Clin Neurophysiol 124 2013 1364 1372 23434439 PMC3664250
  30. [32]Loporto M. McAllister C. Williams J. Hardwick R. Holmes P. Investigating central mechanisms underlying the effects of action observation and imagery through transcranial magnetic stimulation J Mot Behav 43 2011 361 373 21861627
  31. [33]Epstein C.M. Schwartzberg D.G. Davey K.R. Sudderth D.B. Localizing the site of magnetic brain stimulation in humans Neurology 40 1990 666 670 2320243
  32. [34]Marg E. Rudiak D. Phosphenes induced by magnetic stimulation over the occipital brain: description and probable site of stimulation Optom Vis Sci 71 1994 301 311 8065706
  33. [35]Fitzgerald P.B. Brown T.L. Daskalakis Z.J. Chen R. Kulkarni J. Intensity-dependent effects of 1 Hz rTMS on human corticospinal excitability Clin Neurophysiol 113 2002 1136 1141 12088710
  34. [36]Lang N. Harms J. Weyh T. Stimulus intensity and coil characteristics influence the efficacy of rTMS to suppress cortical excitability Clin Neurophysiol 117 2006 2292 2301 16920022
  35. [37]Desmond J.E. Chen S.H.A. Shieh P.B. Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation impairs verbal working memory Ann Neurol 58 2005 553 560 16178033

Authors
Hardwick, R. M., Lesage, E., & Miall, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Hardwick, Robert M.
ORCID
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
643-649
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
DOI
10.1016/j.brs.2014.04.009
PMC
PMC4180011
OpenAlex
W2123192757
Cited by
169
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (EU-FP7-ITN, WT087554)
  • Advantage West Midlands
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K00414X/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation, coil geometry, double-cone coil, figure-of-eight coil, tissue depth, resting motor threshold, recruitment curves, motor cortex stimulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cerebellum, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Scalp, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review