Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The effect of local anatomy on the electric field induced by TMS: evaluation at 14 different target sites

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many human cortical regions are targeted with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The stimulus intensity used for a certain region is generally based on the motor threshold stimulation intensity determined over the motor cortex (M1). However, it is well known that differences exist in coil-target distance and target site anatomy between cortical regions. These differences may well make the stimulation intensity derived from M1 sub-optimal for other regions. Our goal was to determine in what way the induced electric fields differ between cortical target regions. We used finite element method modeling to calculate the induced electric field for multiple target sites in a realistic head model. The effects on the electric field due to coil-target distance and target site anatomy have been quantified. The results show that a correction based on the distance alone does not correctly adjust the induced electric field for regions other than M1. In addition, a correction based solely on the TMS-induced electric field (primary field) does not suffice. A precise adjustment should include coil-target distance, the secondary field caused by charge accumulation at conductivity discontinuities and the direction of the field relative to the local cerebrospinal fluid–grey matter boundary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/.

References

  1. Akhtari M, Bryant HC, Mamelaka N et al (2002) Conductivities of three-layer live human skull. Brain Topogr 14:151–167

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Arai N, Lu M-K, Ugawa Y, Ziemann U (2012) Effective connectivity between human supplementary motor area and primary motor cortex: a paired-coil TMS study. Exp Brain Res 220:79–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985) Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 325:1106–1107

  4. Benninger DH, Berman BD, Houdayer E, Pal N, Luckenbaugh DA, Schneider L, Miranda S, Hallett M (2011) Intermittent theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of Parkinson disease. Neurology 76:601–609

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bestmann S, Ruff CC, Blankenburg F, Weiskopf N, Driver J, Rothwell JC (2008) Mapping causal interregional influences with concurrent TMS-fMRI. Exp Brain Res 191:383–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bijsterbosch JD, Barker AT, Lee K-H, Woodruff PWR (2012) Where does transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) stimulate? Modelling of induced field maps for some common cortical and cerebellar targets. Med Biol Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s11517-012-0922-8

  7. Boroojerdi B, Battaglia F, Muellbacher W, Cohen LG (2001) Mechanisms influencing stimulus-response properties of the human corticospinal system. Clin Neurophysiol 112:931–937

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brasil-Neto JP, Cohen LG, Panizza M, Nilsson J, Roth BJ, Hallett M (1992) Optimal focal transcranial magnetic activation of the human cortex: effects of coil orientation, shape of the induced current pulse, and stimulus intensity. J Clin Neurophysiol 9:132–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. De Geeter N, Crevecoeur G, Dupré L, Van Hecke W, Leemans A (2012) A DTI-based model for TMS using the independent impedance method with frequency-dependent tissue parameters. Phys Med Biol 57:2169–2188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Lucia M, Parker GJM, Embleton K, Newton JM, Walsh V (2007) Diffusion tensor MRI-based estimation of the influence of brain tissue anisotropy on the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 36:1159–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Di Lazzaro V (2004) The physiological basis of transcranial motor cortex stimulation in conscious humans. Clin Neurophysiol 115:255–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Faes TJC, Van der Meij HA, De Munck JC, Heethaar RM (1999) The electric resistivity of human tissues (100 Hz–10 MHz) a meta-analysis of review studies. Physiol Meas 20:R1–R10

  13. Fox PT, Narayana S, Tandon N, Sandoval H, Fox SP, Kochunov PV, Lancaster JL (2004) Column-based model of electric field excitation of cerebral cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 22:1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gabriel S, Lau RW, Gabriel C (1996) The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. Parametric models for the dielectric spectrum of tissues. Phys Med Biol 41:2271–2293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamada M, Ugawa Y, Tsuji S, The Effectiveness of rTMS on Parkinson’s Disease Study Group J (2008) High-frequency rTMS over the supplementary motor area for treatment of Parkinson’ s disease. Mov Disord 23:1524–1531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1979) Brain mechanisms of vision. Sci Am 241:150–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacobs JV, Lou JS, Kraakevik JA, Horak FB (2009) The supplementary motor area contributes to the timing of the anticipatory postural adjustment during step initiation in participants with and without Parkinson’s disease. Neuroscience 164:877–885

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Janssen AM, Rampersad SM, Lucka F, Lanfer B, Lew S, Aydin U, Wolters CH, Stegeman DF, Oostendorp TF (2013) The influence of sulcus width on simulated electric fields induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Phys Med Biol 58:4881–4896

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Laakso I, Hirata A, Ugawa Y (2014) Effects of coil orientation on the electric field induced by TMS over the hand motor area. Phys Med Biol 59:203–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Langguth B, Eichhammer P, Zowe M, Landgrebe M, Binder H, Sand P, Hajak G (2008) Modulating cerebello-thalamocortical pathways by neuronavigated cerebellar repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 38:289–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin C-HJ, Chiang M-C (2013) Applying magnetic resonance imaging to structural and functional brain research. J Neurosci Neuroeng 2:29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Merton PA, Morton HB (1980) Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject. Nature 285:227

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mills KR, Boniface SJ, Schubert M (1992) Magnetic brain stimulation with a double coil: the importance of coil orientation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 85:17–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Miniussi C, Thut G (2010) Combining TMS and EEG offers new prospects in cognitive neuroscience. Brain Topogr 22:249–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miranda PC, Hallett M, Basser PJ (2003) The electric field induced in the brain by magnetic stimulation: a 3-D finite-element analysis of the effect of tissue heterogeneity and anisotropy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50:1074–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mountcastle VB (1997) The columnar organization of the neocortex. Brain 120:701–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mulckhuyse M, Kelley TA, Theeuwes J, Walsh V, Lavie N (2011) Enhanced visual perception with occipital transcranial magnetic stimulation. Eur J Neurosci 34:1320–1325

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Nadeem M, Thorlin T, Gandhi OP, Persson M (2003) Computation of electric and magnetic stimulation in human head using the 3-D impedance method. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50:900–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Oliveri M, Koch G, Torriero S, Caltagirone C (2005) Increased facilitation of the primary motor cortex following 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the contralateral cerebellum in normal humans. Neurosci Lett 376:188–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Opitz A, Windhoff M, Heidemann RM, Turner R, Thielscher A (2011) How the brain tissue shapes the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 58:849–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Opitz A, Legon W, Rowlands A, Bickel WK, Paulus W, Tyler WJ (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 81:253–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pinto AD, Chen R (2001) Suppression of the motor cortex by magnetic stimulation of the cerebellum. Exp Brain Res 140:505–510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pobric G, Hamilton AFDC (2006) Action understanding requires the left inferior frontal cortex. Curr Biol 16:524–529

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosanova M, Casali A, Bellina V, Resta F, Mariotti M, Massimini M (2009) Natural frequencies of human corticothalamic circuits. J Neurosci 29:7679–7685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Roth BJ, Basser PJ (1990) A model of the stimulation of a nerve fiber by electromagnetic induction. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 37:588–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Salinas FS, Lancaster JL, Fox PT (2007) Detailed 3D models of the induced electric field of transcranial magnetic stimulation coils. Phys Med Biol 52:2879–2892

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Salinas FS, Lancaster JL, Fox PT (2009) 3D modeling of the total electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation using the boundary element method. Phys Med Biol 54:3631–3647

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Stokes MG, Chambers CD, Gould IC, Henderson TR, Janko NE, Allen NB, Mattingley JB (2005) Simple metric for scaling motor threshold based on scalp-cortex distance: application to studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neurophysiol 94:4520–4527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thielscher A, Opitz A, Windhoff M (2011) Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 54:234–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Toschi N, Welt T, Guerrisi M, Keck ME (2008) A reconstruction of the conductive phenomena elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation in heterogeneous brain tissue. Phys Med 24:80–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Trillenberg P, Bremer S, Oung S, Erdmann C, Schweikard A, Richter L (2012) Variation of stimulation intensity in transcranial magnetic stimulation with depth. J Neurosci Methods 211:185–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wagner TA, Zahn M, Grodzinsky AJ, Pascual-Leone A (2004) Three-dimensional head model simulation of transcranial magnetic stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51:1586–1598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wilson SA, Thickbroom GW, Mastaglia FL (1993) Transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping of the motor cortex in normal subjects. The representation of two intrinsic hand muscles. J Neurol Sci 118:134–144

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was performed in the context of the BrainGain Smart Mix program of the Dutch government. The study was made possible in part by software from the NIH/NIGMS Center for Integrative Biomedical Computing, 2P41 RR0112553-12.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology/Clinical Neurophysiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Reinier Postlaan 4, 6525 CG, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Arno M. Janssen, Thom F. Oostendorp & Dick F. Stegeman

  2. Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, MOVE Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Dick F. Stegeman

Authors
  1. Arno M. Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thom F. Oostendorp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dick F. Stegeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arno M. Janssen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 430 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janssen, A.M., Oostendorp, T.F. & Stegeman, D.F. The effect of local anatomy on the electric field induced by TMS: evaluation at 14 different target sites. Med Biol Eng Comput 52, 873–883 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-014-1190-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-014-1190-6

Keywords