ArticleHuman brain mapping2021
Improving the efficacy and reliability of rTMS language mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Awake Glioma Surgery with Intraoperative Mapping: Predictors of Language Outcome and Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond Broca and Wernicke: Epilepsy surgery in the language areas.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026Review
- Application of Electric-Field-Optimized Augmented Reality-Guided Neuronavigation in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Preoperative mapping techniques for brain tumor surgery: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Tolerability of transcranial magnetic stimulation language mapping in children.Epilepsy research · 2023Article
- Tractography-based navigated TMS language mapping protocol.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Neuromodulatory effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on language performance in healthy participants: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Visual Short-Term Memory for Coherent and Sequential Motion: A rTMS Investigation.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Improving the efficacy and reliability of rTMS language mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repetitive TMS (rTMS) with a frequency of 5-10 Hz is widely used for language mapping. However, it may be accompanied by discomfort and is limited in the number and reliability of evoked language errors. We, here, systematically tested the influence of different stimulation frequencies (i.e., 10, 30, and 50 Hz) on tolerability, number, reliability, and cortical distribution of language errors aiming at improved language mapping. 15 right-handed, healthy subjects (m = 8, median age: 29 yrs) were investigated in two sessions, separated by 2-5 days. In each session, 10, 30, and 50 Hz rTMS were applied over the left hemisphere in a randomized order during a picture naming task. Overall, 30 Hz rTMS evoked significantly more errors (20 ± 12%) compared to 50 Hz (12 ± 8%; p <.01), whereas error rates were comparable between 30/50 and 10 Hz (18 ± 11%). Across all conditions, a significantly higher error rate was found in Session 1 (19 ± 13%) compared to Session 2 (13 ± 7%, p <.05). The error rate was poorly reliable between sessions for 10 (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = .315) and 30 Hz (ICC = .427), whereas 50 Hz showed a moderate reliability (ICC = .597). Spatial reliability of language errors was low to moderate with a tendency toward increased reliability for higher frequencies, for example, within frontal regions. Compared to 10 Hz, both, 30 and 50 Hz were rated as less painful. Taken together, our data favor the use of rTMS-protocols employing higher frequencies for evoking language errors reliably and with reduced discomfort, depending on the region of interest.
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.