ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2018
Investigating Stimulation Protocols for Language Mapping by Repetitive Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Functional Imaging Techniques to Assess Motor and Language Cortical Plasticity in Glioma Patients: A Systematic Review.Neural plasticity · 2019Pooled it
- Application of Electric-Field-Optimized Augmented Reality-Guided Neuronavigation in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation modulates action naming over the left but not right inferior frontal gyrus.Brain structure & function · 2022Article
- Elucidating the structural-functional connectome of language in glioma-induced aphasia using nTMS and DTI.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- Neuromodulatory effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on language performance in healthy participants: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Improving the efficacy and reliability of rTMS language mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Multi-modal Mapping of the Face Selective Ventral Temporal Cortex-A Group Study With Clinical Implications for ECS, ECoG, and fMRI.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Dual-Task nTMS Mapping to Visualize the Cortico-Subcortical Language Network and Capture Postoperative Outcome-A Patient Series in Neurosurgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Coil orientation affects pain sensation during single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over Broca's area.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2021Article
- Focality of the Induced E-Field Is a Contributing Factor in the Choice of TMS Parameters: Evidence from a 3D Computational Model of the Human Brain.Brain sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is increasingly applied to map human language functions. However, studies on protocol comparisons are mostly lacking. In this study, 20 healthy volunteers (25.7 ± 3.8 years, 12 females) underwent left-hemispheric language mapping by nTMS, combined with an object-naming task, over a cortical spot with reproducible naming errors within the triangular or opercular part of the inferior frontal gyrus (trIFG, opIFG: anterior stimulation) and the angular gyrus or posterior part of the superior temporal gyrus (anG, pSTG: posterior stimulation), respectively. Various stimulation intensities [80, 100, and 120% of the resting motor threshold (rMT)], frequencies (2, 5, 10, and 20 Hz), and coil orientations (in steps of 45°) were evaluated, and the adjustments leading to the highest error rates (ERs), combined with low occurrences of errors due to muscle stimulation, were considered optimal. Regarding anterior stimulation, 100% rMT, 5 Hz, and a coil orientation of 90° or 270° in relation to the respective stimulated gyrus resulted in optimal results. For posterior stimulation, 100% rMT, 10 Hz, and coil orientations of 90° or 270° were considered optimal. Errors due to facial muscle stimulation only played a considerable role during analyses of high-intensity (120% rMT) or high-frequency stimulation (20 Hz). In conclusion, this is one of the first studies to systematically investigate different stimulation protocols for nTMS language mapping, including detailed analyses of the distribution of ERs in relation to various coil orientations considered during neuronavigated stimulation. Mapping with 100% rMT, combined with 5 Hz (anterior stimulation) or 10 Hz (posterior stimulation) and a coil orientation perpendicular to the respective stimulated gyrus can be recommended as optimal adjustments.
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.