Aino E. Tervo

Determining the optimal stimulation target for motor responses (motor hotspot) and the required intensity for reliably eliciting said responses (motor threshold) are common procedures in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) research and treatments. However, the procedures for determining them are user-dependent, slow, and lack standardization, leading to long stimulation sessions with potentially inadequate outcomes. Partially automated algorithms for determining the motor threshold have been developed, but the motor hotspot is still largely mapped by hand. Automating the hotspot mapping will accelerate the process and improve standardization and accuracy. We developed a fully automated algorithm for finding the motor hotspot with multi-locus TMS and Bayesian optimization. Tested online in five healthy participants, the algorithm located motor hotspots with (mean ± 95% CI) 2.1 ± 0.7 mm and 6 ± 2° difference from the global best target with only (mean) 47 stimuli. This is a significant improvement from previous motor-mapping algorithms, which do not optimize for stimulation location and orientation simultaneously. This accurate, fast, and user-independent procedure paves the way for faster experimental processes and more streamlined clinical applications.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) stimulates the brain by electromagnetic induction. The outcome depends on multiple stimulation parameters such as the induced electric-field pattern (in particular, the location of the peak field and its orientation), intensity and timing. However, it is not clear how the TMS-evoked responses are affected by all the stimulation parameters. This study elucidates the dependency of the TMS-evoked electroencephalography (EEG) responses on the orientation of the stimulating electric field. To achieve this, we analysed a dataset from six subjects who were given pulses with 36 stimulus orientations to the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA). The TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) and induced oscillations were analysed with cluster-based statistics. Source estimation was performed to assess the effects of stimulus orientation on the TMS-evoked signal propagation. The amplitudes of the early peaks (20 and 40 ms after the TMS pulse) strongly depended on the electric field orientation. Our analysis suggested orientation dependency up to 100 ms post-stimulus in most subjects, indicating changes in stimulation efficacy and potential changes in signal propagation from the stimulated site. These results suggest that different orientations may perturb different networks. Thus, the orientation is a crucial parameter for the stimulation outcome and should be adjusted according to the cortical network under investigation.

Coregistration of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography (EEG) allows non-invasive probing of brain circuits: TMS induces brain activation due to the generation of a properly oriented focused electric field (E-field) using a coil placed on a selected position over the scalp, while EEG captures the effects of the stimulation on brain electrical activity. Moreover, the combination of these techniques allows the investigation of several brain properties, including brain functional connectivity. The choice of E-field parameters, such as intensity, orientation, and position, is crucial for eliciting cortex-specific effects. Here, we evaluated whether and how the spatial pattern, i.e., topography and strength of functional connectivity, is modulated by the stimulus orientation. We systematically altered the E-field orientation when stimulating the left pre-supplementary motor area and showed an increase of functional connectivity in areas associated with the primary motor cortex and an E-field orientation-specific modulation of functional connectivity intensity.

Objective. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induces an electric field (E-field) in the cortex. To facilitate stimulation targeting, image-guided neuronavigation systems have been introduced. Such systems track the placement of the coil with respect to the head and visualize the estimated cortical stimulation location on an anatomical brain image in real time. The accuracy and precision of the neuronavigation is affected by multiple factors. Our aim was to analyze how different factors in TMS neuronavigation affect the accuracy and precision of the coil–head coregistration and the estimated E-field. Approach. By performing simulations, we estimated navigation errors due to distortions in magnetic resonance images (MRIs), head-to-MRI registration (landmark- and surface-based registrations), localization and movement of the head tracker, and localization of the coil tracker. We analyzed the effect of these errors on coil and head coregistration and on the induced E-field as determined with simplistic and realistic head models. Main results. Average total coregistration accuracies were in the range of 2.2–3.6 mm and 1°; precision values were about half of the accuracy values. The coregistration errors were mainly due to head-to-MRI registration with average accuracies 1.5–1.9 mm/0.2–0.4° and precisions 0.5–0.8 mm/0.1–0.2° better with surface-based registration. The other major source of error was the movement of the head tracker with average accuracy of 1.5 mm and precision of 1.1 mm. When assessed within an E-field method, the average accuracies of the peak E-field location, orientation, and magnitude ranged between 1.5 and 5.0 mm, 0.9 and 4.8°, and 4.4 and 8.5% across the E-field models studied. The largest errors were obtained with the landmark-based registration. When computing another accuracy measure with the most realistic E-field model as a reference, the accuracies tended to improve from about 10 mm/15°/25% to about 2 mm/2°/5% when increasing realism of the E-field model. Significance. The results of this comprehensive analysis help TMS operators to recognize the main sources of error in TMS navigation and that the coregistration errors and their effect in the E-field estimation depend on the methods applied. To ensure reliable TMS navigation, we recommend surface-based head-to-MRI registration and realistic models for E-field computations.

Background Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) allows non-invasive stimulation of the cortex. In multi-locus TMS (mTMS), the stimulating electric field (E-field) is controlled electronically without coil movement by adjusting currents in the coils of a transducer. Objective To develop an mTMS system that allows adjusting the location and orientation of the E-field maximum within a cortical region. Methods We designed and manufactured a planar 5-coil mTMS transducer to allow controlling the maximum of the induced E-field within a cortical region approximately 30 mm in diameter. We developed electronics with a design consisting of independently controlled H-bridge circuits to drive up to six TMS coils. To control the hardware, we programmed software that runs on a field-programmable gate array and a computer. To induce the desired E-field in the cortex, we developed an optimization method to calculate the currents needed in the coils. We characterized the mTMS system and conducted a proof-of-concept motor-mapping experiment on a healthy volunteer. In the motor mapping, we kept the transducer placement fixed while electronically shifting the E-field maximum on the precentral gyrus and measuring electromyography from the contralateral hand. Results The transducer consists of an oval coil, two figure-of-eight coils, and two four-leaf-clover coils stacked on top of each other. The technical characterization indicated that the mTMS system performs as designed. The measured motor evoked potential amplitudes varied consistently as a function of the location of the E-field maximum. Conclusion The developed mTMS system enables electronically targeted brain stimulation within a cortical region.

Besides stimulus intensities and interstimulus intervals (ISI), the electric field (E-field) orientation is known to affect both short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and facilitation (SICF) in paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, it has yet to be established how distinct orientations of the conditioning (CS) and test stimuli (TS) affect the SICI and SICF generation. With the use of a multi-channel TMS transducer that provides electronic control of the stimulus orientation and intensity, we aimed to investigate how changes in the CS and TS orientation affect the strength of SICI and SICF. We hypothesized that the CS orientation would play a major role for SICF than for SICI, whereas the CS intensity would be more critical for SICI than for SICF. In eight healthy subjects, we tested two ISIs (1.5 and 2.7 ms), two CS and TS orientations (anteromedial (AM) and posteromedial (PM)), and four CS intensities (50, 70, 90, and 110% of the resting motor threshold (RMT)). The TS intensity was fixed at 110% RMT. The intensities were adjusted to the corresponding RMT in the AM and PM orientations. SICI and SICF were observed in all tested CS and TS orientations. SICI depended on the CS intensity in a U-shaped manner in any combination of the CS and TS orientations. With 70% and 90% RMT CS intensities, stronger PM-oriented CS induced stronger inhibition than weaker AM-oriented CS. Similar SICF was observed for any CS orientation. Neither SICI nor SICF depended on the TS orientation. We demonstrated that SICI and SICF could be elicited by the CS perpendicular to the TS, which indicates that these stimuli affected either overlapping or strongly connected neuronal populations. We concluded that SICI is primarily sensitive to the CS intensity and that CS intensity adjustment resulted in similar SICF for different CS orientations.

Background Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used in brain research and treatment of various brain dysfunctions. However, the optimal way to target stimulation and administer TMS therapies, for example, where and in which electric-field direction the stimuli should be given, is yet to be determined. Objective To develop an automated closed-loop system for adjusting TMS parameters online based on TMS-evoked brain activity measured with electroencephalography (EEG). Methods We developed an automated closed-loop TMS–EEG set-up. In this set-up, the stimulus parameters are electronically adjusted with multi-locus TMS. As a proof of concept, we developed an algorithm that automatically optimizes the stimulation parameters based on single-trial EEG responses. We applied the algorithm to determine the electric-field orientation that maximizes the amplitude of the TMS– EEG responses. The validation of the algorithm was performed with six healthy volunteers, repeating the search twenty times for each subject. Results The validation demonstrated that the closed-loop control worked as desired despite the large variation in the single-trial EEG responses. We were often able to get close to the orientation that maximizes the EEG amplitude with only a few tens of pulses. Conclusion Optimizing stimulation with EEG feedback in a closed-loop manner is feasible and enables effective coupling to brain activity.