ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Effects of electric field direction on TMS-based motor cortex mapping.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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.
- Measuring transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced electric fields in anatomically and conductively accurate rat head phantoms.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
- Optimizing and assessing multichannel TMS focality.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induces an electric field (E-field) that drives neuronal activation, but the optimal model for predicting cortical responses remains unclear. Traditional TMS motor mapping typically relies on the E-field magnitude or its normal component as a proxy for excitability, overlooking the influence of neuronal morphology and orientation. In this study, we aimed to refine TMS motor mapping by incorporating an average response model that accounts for both E-field magnitude and directional sensitivity. We conducted a regression-based TMS mapping experiment in 14 participants to identify cortical origins of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) from the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. Firing thresholds were estimated for excitatory neurons in cortical layers 2/3 and 5, and regression was performed between MEPs and three E-field quantities: the E-field magnitude (magnitude model), the normal component of E-field (cosine model), and an effective E-field that adjusts magnitude by orientation-specific thresholds (neuron model). Models were compared based on regression fit, convergence speed, and functional validation using optimized coil placements tested in 10 additional participants. Results showed that the magnitude and neuron models performed similarly and robustly, whereas the cosine model explained significantly less variance, required more TMS pulses for stable mapping, and produced the weakest MEPs in validation. These findings suggest that while directional sensitivity plays a role, E-field magnitude remains the dominant factor in motor cortex activation.
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.