ArticleBrain stimulation
Optimal asymmetric electric field pulses for selective transcranial magnetic stimulation with minimised power and coil heating.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Inductance calculation method for transcranial magnetic stimulation figure-8 coils Accounting for spatial mutual inductance].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with asymmetric electric field pulses, such as monophasic, offers directional selectivity for neural activation but requires excessive energy. Previous pulse shape optimisation has been limited to symmetric pulses or heavily constrained variations of conventional waveforms without achieving general optimality in energy efficiency or neural selectivity.
objectiveWe sought to develop a minimally constrained optimisation framework for identifying energy-efficient asymmetric TMS pulses with directional selectivity of neural stimulation.
methodsWe implemented a novel optimisation framework that incorporates neuron model activation constraints and flexible control of pulse asymmetry. The optimised waveforms were experimentally validated against conventional and previously optimised pulses. We measured motor thresholds for conventional pulses as well as one of the optimised unidirectional rectangular (OUR) pulses and compared its MEP latency for anterior-posterior (AP) and posterior-anterior (PA) electric field directions in six healthy human subjects.
resultsThe optimised electric field waveforms had leading phases with a time constant of (280±15)μs (mean±SD) and near-rectangular main stimulation phases. They achieved up to respectively 92% and 88% reduction in energy loss and thus heating compared to conventional monophasic pulses and previously improved monophasic-equivalent pulses. In the human experiments, OUR pulses demonstrated similar motor thresholds to monophasic pulses in both AP and PA directions whilst achieving significantly lower energy loss, particularly in the AP direction. Moreover, there was a significant MEP latency difference of (1.79±0.41)ms (mean±SE) between AP and PA direction with OUR pulses, suggesting directional selectivity.
conclusionOur framework successfully identified highly energy-efficient asymmetric pulses for directionally-selective neural engagement. These pulses can enable selective rapid-rate repetitive TMS protocols with reduced power consumption and coil heating, with potential benefits for precision and potency of neuromodulation.
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.