Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a well-established technique for the diagnosis and treatment of neuropsychiatric diseases. The numerical calculation of the induced electric field (EF) distribution in the brain increases the efficacy of stimulation and improves clinical outcomes. However, unique anatomical features, which distinguish each subject, suggest that personalized models should be preferentially used. The objective of the present study was to assess how anatomy affects the EF distribution and to determine to what extent personalized models are useful for clinical studies. The head models of nineteen healthy volunteers were automatically segmented. Two versions of each head model, a homogeneous and a five-tissue anatomical, were stimulated by the model of a Hesed coil (H-coil), employing magnetic quasi-static simulations. The H-coil was placed at two standard stimulating positions per model, over the frontal and central areas. The results show small, but indisputable, variations in the EFs for the homogeneous and anatomical models. The interquartile ranges in the anatomical versions were higher compared to the homogeneous ones, indicating that individual anatomical features may affect the prediction of stimulation volumes. It is concluded that personalized models provide complementary information and should be preferably employed in the context of diagnostic and therapeutic TMS studies.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in humans induces electric fields (E-fields, EF) that perturb and modulate the brain’s endogenous neuronal activity and result in the generation of TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). The exact relation of the characteristics of the induced E-field and the intensity of the brains’ response, as measured by electroencephalography (EEG), is presently unclear. In this pilot study, conducted on three healthy subjects and two patients with generalized epilepsy (total: 3 males, 2 females, mean age of 26 years; healthy: 2 males, 1 female, mean age of 25.7 years; patients: 1 male, 1 female, mean age of 26.5 years), we investigated the temporal and spatial relations of the E-field, induced by single-pulse stimuli, and the brain’s response to TMS. Brain stimulation was performed with a deep TMS device (BrainsWay Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel) and an H7 coil placed over the central area. The induced EF was computed on personalized anatomical models of the subjects through magneto quasi-static simulations. We identified specific time instances and brain regions that exhibit high positive or negative associations of the E-field with brain activity. In addition, we identified significant correlations of the brain’s response intensity with the strength of the induced E-field and finally prove that TEPs are better correlated with E-field characteristics than with the stimulator’s output. These observations provide further insight in the relation between E-field and the ensuing cortical activation, validate in a clinically relevant manner the results of E-field modeling and reinforce the view that personalized approaches should be adopted in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation.

TMS contaminates concurrent EEG recordings with Auditory Evoked Potentials (AEPs), which are caused by the perceived impulsive acoustic noise of the TMS coils. We hereby introduce a novel and perceptually motivated/tuned method for the suppression of auditory evoked EEG artifacts of rTMS under the name of “Auditory Fine-Tuned Suppressor of TMS-Clicks” (TMS-click AFTS). The proposed method is based on the deployment of a psychophysically-matched wide-band noise (WBN) masking stimulus, whose parametric synthesis and presentation are based upon adaptive psychophysical optimization. The masking stimulus is constructed individually for each patient/subject, thus facilitating aspects of precision medicine. A specially designed automation software is used for the realization of an adaptive procedure for optimal parameterization of masking noise level, optimizing both the subject’s comfort and the degree of AEP reduction. The proposed adaptive procedure also takes into account the combined effect of TMS intensity level and can as well account for any possibly available subject’s hearing acuity data. To assess the efficacy of the proposed method in reducing the acoustic effects of TMS, we performed TMS-EEG recordings with a 60 channel TMS-compatible EEG system in a cohort of healthy subjects (n = 10) and patients with epilepsy (n = 10) under four conditions (i.e., resting EEG with and without acoustic mask and sham TMS-EEG with and without acoustic mask at various stimulus intensity levels). The proposed approach shows promising results in terms of efficiency of AEP suppression and subject’s comfort and warrants further investigation in research and clinical settings.

Background/Objectives: Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) enables presurgical motor mapping, while nTMS-seeded diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) delineates the corticospinal tract (CST). We compared cortical and tractography measures between healthy individuals and patients with motor-eloquent brain tumors and between patient hemispheres. Methods: Twenty healthy volunteers and 18 patients underwent first dorsal interosseous (FDI) mapping at 110% resting motor threshold (rMT). Motor map metrics, maximum FDI motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, and nTMS-seeded CST measures were analyzed; hotspot and center-of-gravity (CoG) dispersion were assessed in common space. DTI metrics were available for 13 healthy volunteers and 13 patients. Results: Consistent with previous nTMS literature, patients showed impaired motor performance and suprathreshold corticospinal output, with lower grip strength, maximum FDI MEP amplitude, and map volume than controls. rMT did not differ significantly, indicating that threshold excitability may be unrevealing despite motor system dysfunction. Notably, the contralateral patient hemisphere also differed from controls in grip strength, maximum FDI MEP amplitude, reconstructed CST fiber length, and mean axial diffusivity, while these measures did not differ significantly between the ipsilateral and contralateral patient hemispheres. CoG dispersion was greater in patients, whereas hotspot dispersion was not. Conclusions: The study confirms tumor-associated impairment of motor performance and suprathreshold corticospinal output while identifying two potentially novel observations: abnormalities extending to the apparently unaffected hemisphere and increased heterogeneity of the amplitude-weighted motor map center. Notably, contralateral abnormalities may reflect bilateral network changes or patient-related factors, rather than isolated contralateral CST pathology. Independent healthy controls may therefore provide information not captured by within-patient hemispheric comparisons.