Safety of different inter-train intervals for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and recommendations for safe ranges of stimulation parameters
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In most subjects, low-frequency TMS leads to a disruption of activity in the stimulated brain region outlasting the duration of TMS.
“In most subjects, low-frequency TMS leads to a disruption of activity in the stimulated brain region outlasting the duration of TMS (51, 52).”
From Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments (2010) · cites this paper as [51]
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