Method to assess the mismatch between the measured and nominal parameters of transcranial magnetic stimulation devices

BACKGROUND Small variations in TMS parameters, such as pulse frequency and amplitude may elicit distinct neurophysiological responses. Assessing the mismatch between nominal and experimental parameters of TMS stimulators is essential for safe application and comparisons of results across studies. NEW METHOD A search coil was used to assess exactness and precision errors of amplitude and timing parameters such as interstimulus interval, the period of pulse repetition, and intertrain interval of TMS devices. The method was validated using simulated pulses and applied to six commercial stimulators in single-pulse (spTMS), paired-pulse (ppTMS), and repetitive (rTMS) protocols, working at several combinations of intensities and frequencies. RESULTS In a simulated signal, the maximum exactness error was 1.7% for spTMS and the maximum precision error 1.9% for ppTMS. Three out of six TMS commercial devices showed exactness and precision errors in spTMS amplitude higher than 5%. Moreover, two devices showed amplitude exactness errors higher than 5% in rTMS with parameters suggested by the manufactures. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS Currently available tools allow characterization of induced electric field intensity and focality, and pulse waveforms of a single TMS pulse. Our method assesses the mismatch between nominal and experimental values in spTMS, ppTMS and rTMS protocols through the exactness and precision errors of amplitude and timing parameters. CONCLUSION This study highlights the importance of evaluating the physical characteristics of TMS devices and protocols, and provides a method for on-site quality assessment of multiple stimulation protocols in clinical and research environments.

[1]  M. Arns,et al.  Potential differential effects of 9 Hz rTMS and 10 Hz rTMS in the treatment of depression , 2010, Brain Stimulation.

[2]  J. Karhu,et al.  Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2010, Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology.

[3]  A. Pearce,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods in Acquiring Stimulus–Response Curves with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation , 2013, Brain Stimulation.

[4]  W. Paulus,et al.  Impact of pulse duration in single pulse TMS , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[5]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Controllable pulse parameter transcranial magnetic stimulator with enhanced circuit topology and pulse shaping , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  P. Fitzgerald,et al.  Influence of inter-train interval on the plastic effects of rTMS , 2017, Brain Stimulation.

[7]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Pulse Duration as Well as Current Direction Determines the Specificity of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Motor Cortex during Contraction , 2017, Brain Stimulation.

[8]  R. M. Yaremko,et al.  Handbook of Research and Quantitative Methods in Psychology: For Students and Professionals , 1986 .

[9]  Fabrizio Vecchio,et al.  Time‐varying coupling of EEG oscillations predicts excitability fluctuations in the primary motor cortex as reflected by motor evoked potentials amplitude: An EEG‐TMS study , 2014, Human brain mapping.

[10]  Alexander Opitz,et al.  Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex , 2013, NeuroImage.

[11]  Lari M. Koponen,et al.  Experimental Characterization of the Electric Field Distribution Induced by TMS Devices , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[12]  S. Rossi,et al.  Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) , 2014, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  Enrico Prenesti,et al.  Trueness, precision and accuracy: a critical overview of the concepts as well as proposals for revision , 2015, Accreditation and Quality Assurance.

[14]  H. Holcomb,et al.  Individualized Brain Inhibition and Excitation Profile in Response to Paired-Pulse TMS , 2014, Journal of motor behavior.

[15]  O. Baffa,et al.  Effect of TMS coil orientation on the spatial distribution of motor evoked potentials in an intrinsic hand muscle , 2018, Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering.

[16]  T. Kammer,et al.  Electric field properties of two commercial figure-8 coils in TMS: calculation of focality and efficiency , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  W. Paulus,et al.  Half sine, monophasic and biphasic transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[18]  Risto J Ilmoniemi,et al.  Noninvasive extraction of microsecond‐scale dynamics from human motor cortex , 2018, Human brain mapping.

[19]  M. Iacoboni,et al.  Correlation between motor and phosphene thresholds: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study , 2008, Human brain mapping.

[20]  S. Rossi,et al.  Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[21]  Oswaldo Baffa,et al.  Development and characterization of the InVesalius Navigator software for navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2018, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.