Transcranial magnetic stimulation coregistered with MRI: a comparison of a guided versus blind stimulation technique and its effect on evoked compound muscle action potentials
Open accessAbstract
Introduction and methods Compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are characterized by enormous variability, even when attempts are made to stimulate the same scalp location. This report describes the results of a comparison of the spatial errors in coil placement and resulting CMAP characteristics using a guided and blind TMS stimulation technique. The former uses a coregistration system, which displays the intersection of the peak TMS induced electric field with the cortical surface. The latter consists of the conventional placement of the TMS coil on the optimal scalp position for activation of the first dorsal interossei (FDI) muscle.Results Guided stimulation resulted in significantly improved spatial precision for exciting the corticospinal projection to the FDI compared to blind stimulation. This improved precision of coil placement was associated with a significantly increased probability of eliciting FDI responses. Although these responses tended to have larger amplitudes and areas, the coefficient of variation between guided and blind stimulation induced CMAPs did not significantly differ.Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that guided stimulation improves the ability to precisely revisit previously stimulated cortical loci as well as increasing the probability of eliciting TMS induced CMAPs. Response variability, however, is due to factors other than coil placement.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Individual brain images were used to plan, guide, and monitor the stimulation in real time using a stereotaxic infrared system, ensuring that every TMS pulse was delivered to the predetermined cortical location.
“These individual brain images were used to plan, guide, and monitor the stimulation in real time using a stereotaxic infrared system, ensuring that every TMS pulse was delivered to the predetermined cortical location (53).”
From Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments (2010) · cites this paper as [53]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 140
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness. J Clin Psychol. 1974;30:545–552. [Google Scholar]
- Authors
- Gugino, L. D., Rafael Romero, J., Aglio, L., Titone, D., Ramirez, M., Pascual-Leone, A., Grimson, E., Weisenfeld, N., Kikinis, R., & Shenton, M.-E.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gugino, Laverne D
- Venue
- Clinical Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1781-1792
- ISSN
- 1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2845153
- OpenAlex
- W2110086013
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH-50747, K02MH001110, R03 MH60272, R01MH050740, R03MH060272, K02MH 01110)
- National Cancer Institute (P01 CA-67165, P01CA067165)
- National Center for Research Resources (R01RR011747, P41RR013218, R01 RR11747, P41 RR13218)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Peripheral Nerve Disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Keywords
- transcranial magnetic stimulation, MRI co-registration, coil placement, spatial precision, compound muscle action potential, corticospinal projections, response variability
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Physical Stimulation, Probability, Scalp, Sensory Thresholds, Muscle, Skeletal, 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
