ArticleBrain topography2018
MRI Verification of a 10-20 Targeting Protocol Used During Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Sessions for Tinnitus.
Article in Brain topography, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptual and Cognitive Effects of Focal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Auditory Cortex in Tinnitus.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2025Trial
- Focal tDCS of auditory cortex in chronic tinnitus: A randomized controlled mechanistic trial.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Trial
- Neuronavigated Versus Non-navigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Study.Trends in hearingTrial
- History of Tinnitus Research at the VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research (NCRAR), 1997-2021: Studies and Key Findings.Seminars in hearing · 2024Review
- Evaluating noninvasive brain stimulation to treat overactive bladder in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Langguth et al. (2006) described a method for targeting primary auditory cortex (PAC) during transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) using the 10-20 electroencephalography system. Study aims were to measure the degree of accuracy in placing the TMS coil on the scalp overlying PAC using the 10-20 method and determine the extent to which accuracy depends on the hemisphere of the coil placement. Twelve participants underwent anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of their head in a 3T scanner. Before imaging, a fiducial marker was placed on their scalp corresponding to the TMS coil position. MRI scans were analyzed to determine the distance from the fiducial marker to PAC for each participant. On average, the 10-20 method resulted in distances in the medial-lateral, anterior-posterior, and inferior-superior dimensions that were within a few millimeters (~ 4 mm) of each other between the left and right hemispheres. The fiducial marker was, on average, 10.4 mm superior and 10.8 mm posterior to the optimal scalp location that minimized the distance to PAC. Individual asymmetries and other systematic differences found in this study raise important considerations to keep in mind that might necessitate using an MRI-guided method of coil-positioning when targeting PAC for TMS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.