These guidelines provide an up-date of previous IFCN report on "Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application" (Rossini et al., 1994). A new Committee, composed of international experts, some of whom were in the panel of the 1994 "Report", was selected to produce a current state-of-the-art review of non-invasive stimulation both for clinical application and research in neuroscience. Since 1994, the international scientific community has seen a rapid increase in non-invasive brain stimulation in studying cognition, brain-behavior relationship and pathophysiology of various neurologic and psychiatric disorders. New paradigms of stimulation and new techniques have been developed. Furthermore, a large number of studies and clinical trials have demonstrated potential therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, especially for TMS. Recent guidelines can be found in the literature covering specific aspects of non-invasive brain stimulation, such as safety (Rossi et al., 2009), methodology (Groppa et al., 2012) and therapeutic applications (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). This up-dated review covers theoretical, physiological and practical aspects of non-invasive stimulation of brain, spinal cord, nerve roots and peripheral nerves in the light of more updated knowledge, and include some recent extensions and developments.

1. In ten normal volunteers, a transcranial magnetic or electric stimulus that was subthreshold for evoking an EMG response in relaxed muscles was used to condition responses evoked by a later, suprathreshold magnetic or electric test shock. In most experiments the test stimulus was given to the lateral part of the motor strip in order to evoke EMG responses in the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI). 2. A magnetic conditioning stimulus over the hand area of cortex could suppress responses produced in the relaxed FDI by a suprathreshold magnetic test stimulus at interstimulus intervals of 1‐6 ms. At interstimulus intervals of 10 and 15 ms, the test response was facilitated. 3. Using a focal magnetic stimulus we explored the effects of moving the conditioning stimulus to different scalp locations while maintaining the magnetic test coil at one site. If the conditioning coil was moved anterior or posterior to the motor strip there was less suppression of test responses in the FDI. In contrast, stimulation at the vertex could suppress FDI responses by an amount comparable to that seen with stimulation over the hand area. With the positions of the two coils reversed, conditioning stimuli over the hand area suppressed responses evoked in leg muscles by vertex test shocks. 4. The intensity of both conditioning and test shocks influenced the amount of suppression. Small test responses were more readily suppressed than large responses. The best suppression was seen with small conditioning stimuli (0.7‐0.9 times motor threshold in relaxed muscle); increasing the intensity to motor threshold or above resulted in less suppression or even facilitation. 5. Two experiments suggested that the suppression was produced by an action on cortical, rather than spinal excitability. First, a magnetic conditioning stimulus over the hand area failed to produce any suppression of responses evoked in active hand muscles by a small (approximately 200 V, 50 microsecond time constant) anodal electric test shock. Second, a vertex conditioning shock had no effect on forearm flexor H reflexes even though responses in the same muscles produced by magnetic cortical test shocks were readily suppressed at appropriate interstimulus intervals. 6. Small anodal electric conditioning stimuli were much less effective in suppressing magnetic test responses than either magnetic or cathodal electric conditioning shocks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

1. Using two magnetic stimulators, we investigated the effect of a conditioning magnetic stimulus over the motor cortex of one hemisphere on the size of EMG responses evoked in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle by a magnetic test stimulus given over the opposite hemisphere. 2. A single conditioning shock to one hemisphere produced inhibition of the test response evoked from the opposite hemisphere when the conditioning‐test interval was 5‐6 ms or longer. We shall refer to this as interhemispheric inhibition. However, the minimum latency of inhibition observed using surface EMG responses may have underestimated the true interhemispheric conduction time. Single motor unit studies suggested values 4‐7 ms longer than the minimum interval observed with surface EMG. 3. Interhemispheric inhibition was seen when the test muscle was active or relaxed. Increasing the intensity of the conditioning stimulus increased the duration of inhibition: increasing the intensity of the test stimulus reduced the depth of inhibition. 4. The conditioning coil had to be placed on the appropriate area of scalp for inhibition to occur. The effect of the conditioning stimulus was maximal when it was applied over the hand area of motor cortex, and decreased when the stimulus was moved medial or lateral to that point. 5. The inhibitory effect on the test stimulus probably occurred at the level of the cerebral cortex. In contrast to the inhibition of test responses evoked by magnetic test stimuli, test responses evoked in active FDI by a small anodal electric shock were not significantly inhibited by a contralateral magnetic conditioning stimulus. Similarly, H reflexes in relaxed forearm flexor muscles were unaffected by conditioning stimuli to the ipsilateral hemisphere. However, inhibition was observed if the experiment was repeated with the muscles active.

1. In seven normal subjects, subthreshold transcranial magnetic conditioning stimuli (using a figure‐of‐eight coil) were applied over the motor cortex in order to evoke activity in intracortical neuronal circuits. The net effect on cortical excitability was evaluated by measuring the effect on the size of EMG responses elicited in the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) muscle by a subsequent suprathreshold test stimulus. 2. A single conditioning stimulus suppressed the size of the test response at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 1‐4 ms whereas the response was facilitated at ISIs of 6‐20 ms. The facilitation could be augmented if pairs of conditioning stimuli were given. 3. Inhibition and facilitation appeared to have separate mechanisms. The threshold for inhibition (0.7 active motor threshold) was slightly lower than that for facilitation (0.8 active threshold). Similarly, the inhibitory effect was independent of the direction of current flow induced in the cortex by the conditioning shock, whereas facilitation was maximal with posterior‐anterior currents and minimal with lateromedial current. 4. Direct corticospinal effects were probably not responsible for the results since facilitation of cortical test responses could be produced by conditioning stimuli which had no effect on the amplitude of H reflexes elicited in active ADM muscle. 5. Inhibition and facilitation appeared to interact in a roughly linear manner, consistent with separate inputs to a common neurone. 6. We suggest that subthreshold transcranial magnetic stimulation is capable of activating separate populations of excitatory and inhibitory interneurones in the motor cortex.