ArticleHuman brain mapping2026
Standardizing TMS Intensity Across Different Coils Using Individualized Electric Field Modeling.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative measures for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) intensity are needed to ensure safe and consistent application in therapeutic and research settings. However, resting motor thresholds (rMTs), commonly used to determine stimulation intensity, depend on the coil used. Unless motor mapping and treatment coils are identical, re-thresholding is necessary, increasing patient discomfort and potentially introducing variability across studies. These considerations raise an unresolved fundamental question: does individual rMT reflect a consistent cortical electric field (E-field) magnitude independent of coil geometry? We tested the hypothesis that rMT corresponds to a coil-invariant cortical E-field magnitude and evaluated a computational method for predicting stimulator output across different coils using a reference rMT. Thirteen healthy, right-handed participants were recruited; ten were included in the primary analysis. Participants underwent TMS with two figure-of-eight coils of different sizes. E-field distributions were simulated using a fast multipole boundary element method, in free space and within personalized MRI-based head models. rMT prediction accuracy was compared between a detailed five-layer and a simplified three-layer head model, and both were evaluated against direct rMT scaling using the reference coil. The personalized E-field-based approach significantly improved rMT prediction accuracy over direct scaling (p < 0.001). The root-mean-square error (RMSE) was 1.26% and 1.32% of maximum stimulator output (MSO) for detailed and simplified models, versus 6.1% MSO for direct scaling. Individual rMT corresponds to a constant cortical E-field magnitude ratio across coil types. E-field-based prediction offers a more accurate, coil-independent method for standardizing TMS intensity, reducing the need for repeated thresholding.
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.