Cited by 249Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Safety of different inter-train intervals for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and recommendations for safe ranges of stimulation parameters

Chen, Robert, Gerloff, Christian, Classen, Joseph, Wassermann, Eric M, Hallett, Mark, G. Cohen, Leonardo·1997·Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Electromyography and Motor Control

Abstract

Induction of a seizure in a normal subject with trains of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied in close succession suggested that short inter-train intervals, a parameter not considered in our previous safety studies, may not be safe. Here, we evaluate the safety of different inter-train intervals for rTMS in 10 healthy volunteers. Ten rTMS trains at 20 Hz for 1.6 s and a stimulus intensity of 110% of motor threshold (MT) were found to be safe at the inter-train interval of 5 s. However, inter-train intervals of 1 s or less were unsafe for trains of 20 Hz for 1.6 s and stimulus intensities higher than 100% of MT. Based on these results, we propose safety guidelines for inter-train intervals at different stimulus intensities. We also analyzed the stimulus parameters, used in 3 studies, that led to seizures in normal subjects. One seizure was due to short inter-train intervals, one was likely related to intense individual rTMS trains close to the limit of our previous safety recommendations, and one was likely due to a combination of these two factors. To provide an additional safety margin, we suggest reducing the duration for individual rTMS trains by 25% from our previous recommendations. Updated safety tables currently in use at our institution are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0924-980x(97)00036-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 249

Authors
Chen, R., Gerloff, C., Classen, J., Wassermann, E. M., Hallett, M., & G. Cohen, L.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Electromyography and Motor Control
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-12
Volume
105
Issue
6
Pages
415-421
ISSN
0924-980X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985813090
Cited by
249
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Electromyography and Motor Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, stimulation safety, motor threshold, stimulation parameters, safety guidelines, healthy volunteers, seizure induction
MeSH terms
Adult, Electromagnetic Fields, Electromyography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Cortex, Physical Stimulation, Reference Values, Seizures, Evoked Potentials, Motor, 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