Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 198

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex

Open access
Opitz, Alexander, Legon, Wynn, Rowlands, Abby, Bickel, Warren K., Paulus, Walter, Tyler, William J.·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Recent evidence indicates subject-specific gyral folding patterns and white matter anisotropy uniquely shape electric fields generated by TMS. Current methods for predicting the brain regions influenced by TMS involve projecting the TMS coil position or center of gravity onto realistic head models derived from structural and functional imaging data. Similarly, spherical models have been used to estimate electric field distributions generated by TMS pulses delivered from a particular coil location and position. In the present paper we inspect differences between electric field computations estimated using the finite element method (FEM) and projection-based approaches described above. We then more specifically examined an approach for estimating cortical excitation volumes based on individualistic FEM simulations of electric fields. We evaluated this approach by performing neurophysiological recordings during MR-navigated motormapping experiments. We recorded motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in response to single pulse TMS using two different coil orientations (45° and 90° to midline) at 25 different locations (5×5 grid, 1cm spacing) centered on the hotspot of the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle in left motor cortex. We observed that motor excitability maps varied within and between subjects as a function of TMS coil position and orientation. For each coil position and orientation tested, simulations of the TMS-induced electric field were computed using individualistic FEM models and compared to MEP amplitudes obtained during our motormapping experiments. We found FEM simulations of electric field strength, which take into account subject-specific gyral geometry and tissue conductivity anisotropy, significantly correlated with physiologically observed MEP amplitudes (rmax=0.91, p=1.8×10(-5) rmean=0.81, p=0.01). These observations validate the implementation of individualistic FEM models to account for variations in gyral folding patterns and tissue conductivity anisotropy, which should help improve the targeting accuracy of TMS in the mapping or modulation of human brain circuits.

Overview

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.neuroimage.2013.04.067

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 198

Metadata

Authors
Opitz, A., Legon, W., Rowlands, A., Bickel, W. K., Paulus, W., & Tyler, W. J.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
81
Pages
253-264
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068638051
Cited by
198
References
6
FWCI
8.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.067
The paper
Opitz, A., Legon, W., Rowlands, A., Bickel, W. K., Paulus, W., & Tyler, W. J. (2013). Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.067

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.