ArticleBrain stimulation
Optimizing and assessing multichannel TMS focality.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultichannel transcranial magnetic stimulation (mTMS) enables electronic steering of induced electric fields across multiple cortical targets without physical coil repositioning, addressing key limitations of conventional single-channel TMS (sTMS). However, determining optimal input currents for focal stimulation remains challenging, and different mTMS systems have not been systematically compared under realistic hardware constraints.
objectiveTo develop an user-centric framework for optimizing and assessing mTMS focality by introducing a generic optimization algorithm, establishing meaningful quality metrics, and comparing mTMS coil arrays with traditional single-channel TMS across cortical targets.
methodsWe developed a fast optimization framework incorporating target E-field constraints via parametrization of degenerated hyperellipsoids, explicitly integrating current-rate limits, for example from stimulator electronics and coil heating. Using high-resolution finite-element models of nine individual brains, we compared two mTMS designs (5-channel planar and 6/12-channel spherical systems) with standard sTMS figure-of-eight coils through E-field simulations. Three complementary metrics quantified stimulation quality: Focality, Target2Max, and OverstimulatedArea.
resultsDespite using a single optimized placement for all region-of-interest targets, mTMS achieved focality comparable to repositioned single-channel TMS in this in-silico study. For superficial targets, single-channel TMS showed slightly better stimulation, but for deeper cortical targets (>25 mm skin-cortex distance), mTMS performed similarly. More mTMS channels improved focality but required stronger current-rate constraints. The planar design performed better for deeper targets, while spherical designs improved with additional channels.
conclusionmTMS systems demonstrate remarkable performance comparable to standard TMS, enabling efficient multi-target stimulation without repositioning. Our open-source framework provides practical tools for designing and evaluating mTMS systems, supporting goal-directed mTMS development and effective application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41690464What 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.