Cited by 145Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeurological disorders and treatmentsUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications

Neuronavigation maximizes accuracy and precision in TMS positioning: evidence from 11,230 distance, angle, and electric field modeling measurements

Open access
Caulfield, Kevin A., Fleischmann, Holly H., Cox, Claire E., Wolf, Julia P., George, Mark S., McTeague, Lisa M.·2022·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Researchers and clinicians have traditionally relied on elastic caps with markings to reposition the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil between trains and sessions. Newer neuronavigation technology co-registers the patient's head and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, providing the researcher with real-time feedback about how to adjust the coil to be on-target. However, there has been no head to head comparison of accuracy and precision across treatment sessions. OBJECTIVE: /Hypothesis: In this two-part study, we compared elastic cap and neuronavigation targeting methodologies on distance, angle, and electric field (E-field) magnitude values. METHODS: In 42 participants receiving up to 50 total accelerated rTMS sessions in 5 days, we compared cap and neuronavigation targeting approaches in 3408 distance and 6816 angle measurements. In Experiment 1, TMS administrators saved an on-target neuronavigation location at Beam F3, which served as the landmark for all other measurements. Next, the operators placed the TMS coil based on cap markings or neuronavigation software to measure the distance and angle differences from the on-target sample. In Experiment 2, we saved each XYZ coordinate of the TMS coil from cap and neuronavigation targeting in 12 participants to compare the E-field magnitude differences at the cortical prefrontal target in 1106 cap and neuronavigation models. RESULTS: Cap targeting was significantly off-target for distance, placing the coil an average of 10.66 mm off-target (Standard error of the mean; SEM = 0.19 mm) compared to 0.3 mm (SEM = 0.03 mm) for neuronavigation (p < 0.0001). Cap targeting also significantly deviated for angles off-target, averaging 7.79 roll/pitch degrees (SEM = 1.07°) off-target and 5.99 yaw degrees (SEM = 0.12°) off-target; in comparison, neuronavigation targeting positioned the coil 0.34 roll/pitch degrees (SEM = 0.01°) and 0.22 yaw (SEM = 0.004°) off-target (both p < 0.0001). Further analyses revealed that there were significant inter-operator differences on distance and angle positioning for F3 (all p < 0.05), but not neuronavigation. Lastly, cap targeting resulted in significantly lower E-fields at the intended prefrontal cortical target, with equivalent E-fields as 110.7% motor threshold (MT; range = 58.3-127.4%) stimulation vs. 119.9% MT (range = 115-123.3%) from neuronavigated targeting with 120% MT stimulation applied (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cap-based targeting is an inherent source of target variability compared to neuronavigation. Additionally, cap-based coil placement is more prone to differences across operators. Off-target coil placement secondary to cap-based measurements results in significantly lower amounts of stimulation reaching the cortical target, with some individuals receiving only 48.6% of the intended on-target E-field. Neuronavigation technology enables more precise and accurate TMS positioning, resulting in the intended stimulation intensities at the targeted cortical level.

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.2022.08.013

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • A Brainsight Neuronavigation system ensured accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of coil placement both within and between sessions.

    “A Brainsight Neuronavigation system (Version 2.4.8) ensured accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of coil placement both within and between sessions [35].”

    From A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI (2024) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Results (Experiment 1A–B; page unavailable) report substantially smaller coil-placement deviations with neuronavigation than with cap targeting across sessions, supporting improved accuracy and consistency. The Methods (Neuronavigation procedure; page unavailable) identify the system as Brainsight Version 2.4.7, not the citing sentence’s Version 2.4.8. The paper supports improved placement rather than a guarantee that placement was accurate and reproducible within and between sessions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [29]Saturnino GB, Puonti O, Nielsen JD, Antonenko D, Madsen KH, Thielscher A. SimNIBS 2.1: a comprehensive pipeline for individualized electric field modelling for transcranial brain stimulation. In: Makarov S, Horner M, Noetscher G, editors. Brain and hum bod model 2018. Cham (CH): Springer Copyright 2019, The Author(s); 2019. p. 3– 25. 31725247
  2. [39]Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O. Quantitative review finds No evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul 2015; 8(3): 535– 50. 25701175
  3. [47]Cole EJ, Stimpson KH, Bentzley BS, Gulser M, Cherian K, Tischler C, Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy for treatmentresistant depression. Am J Psychiatr 2020; 177(8):716e26. appi.ajp.2019.19070720. 32252538

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caulfield, K. A., Fleischmann, H. H., Cox, C. E., Wolf, J. P., George, M. S., & McTeague, L. M.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Caulfield, Kevin A.
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
1192-1205
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W4293512447
Cited by
145
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 13
FWCI
9.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • National Institutes of Health (F31 NRSA)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM109040)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31NS126019)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD086844)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Keywords
neuronavigation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, targeting accuracy, electric field modeling, inter-operator variability, prefrontal cortex stimulation
MeSH terms
Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Software, Prefrontal Cortex, Neuronavigation, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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