ArticleBrain stimulation
Reduced auditory perception and brain response with quiet TMS coil.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of transcranial magnetic brain stimulation.Physiological reviews · 2026Review
- Optimization, implementation, and performance of TMS coils with maximum focality and various stimulation depths.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectromagnetic forces in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coils generate a loud clicking sound that produces confounding auditory activation and is potentially hazardous to hearing. To reduce this noise while maintaining stimulation efficiency similar to conventional TMS coils, we previously developed a quiet TMS double containment coil (qTMS-DCC).
objectiveTo compare the stimulation strength, perceived loudness, and EEG response between qTMS-DCC and a commercial TMS coil.
methodsNine healthy volunteers participated in a within-subject study design. The resting motor thresholds (RMTs) for qTMS-DCC and MagVenture Cool-B65 were measured. Psychoacoustic titration matched the Cool-B65 loudness to qTMS-DCC pulsed at 80, 100, and 120 % RMT. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded for both coils. The psychoacoustic titration and ERPs were acquired with the coils both on and 6 cm off the scalp, the latter isolating the effects of airborne auditory stimulation from body sound and electromagnetic stimulation. The ERP comparisons focused on a centro-frontal region that encompassed peak responses in the global signal while stimulating the primary motor cortex.
resultsRMT did not differ significantly between the coils, with or without the EEG cap on the head. qTMS-DCC was perceived to be substantially quieter than Cool-B65. For example, qTMS-DCC at 100 % coil-specific RMT sounded like Cool-B65 at 34 % RMT. The general ERP waveform and topography were similar between the two coils, as were early-latency components, indicating comparable electromagnetic brain stimulation in the on-scalp condition. qTMS- DCC had a significantly smaller P180 component in both on-scalp and off-scalp conditions, supporting reduced auditory activation.
conclusionsThe stimulation efficiency of qTMS-DCC matched Cool-B65 while having substantially lower perceived loudness and auditory-evoked potentials.
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.