https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6116-6256
Figures
Abstract
The increasing application of TMS in research and therapy has spawned an ever-growing number of commercial and non-commercial TMS devices and technology development. New CE-marked devices appear at a rate of approximately one every two years, with new FDA-approved application of TMS occurring at a similar rate. With the resulting complex landscape of TMS devices and their application, accessible information about the technological characteristics of the TMS devices, such as the type of their circuitry, their pulse characteristics, or permitted protocols would be beneficial. We here present an overview and open access database summarizing key features and applications of available commercial and non-commercial TMS devices (http://www.tmsbase.info). This may guide comparison and decision making about the use of these devices. A bibliometric analysis was performed by identifying commercial and non-commercial TMS devices from which a comprehensive database was created summarizing their publicly available characteristics, both from a technical and clinical point of view. In this document, we introduce both the commercial devices and prototypes found in the literature. The technical specifications that unify these devices are briefly analysed in two separate tables: power electronics, waveform, protocols, and coil types. In the prototype TMS systems, the proposed innovations are focused on improving the treatment regarding the patient: noise cancellation, controllable parameters, and multiple stimulation. This analysis shows that the landscape of TMS is becoming increasingly fragmented, with new devices appearing ever more frequently. The review provided here can support development of benchmarking frameworks and comparison between TMS systems, inform the choice of TMS platforms for specific research and therapeutic applications, and guide future technology development for neuromodulation devices. This standardisation strategy will allow a better end-user choice, with an impact on the TMS manufacturing industry and a homogenisation of patient samples in multi-centre clinical studies. As an open access repository, we envisage the database to grow along with the dynamic development of TMS devices and applications through community-lead curation.
Citation: Gutiérrez-Muto AM, Bestmann S, Sánchez de la Torre R, Pons JL, Oliviero A, Tornero J (2023) The complex landscape of TMS devices: A brief overview. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0292733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292733
Editor: Carmen Concerto, University of Catania Libraries and Documentation Centre: Universita degli Studi di Catania, ITALY
Received: July 13, 2023; Accepted: September 27, 2023; Published: November 28, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Gutiérrez-Muto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technology used for basic science, translational research, and therapy in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric disorders [1–3]. The technological evolution of TMS has greatly facilitated the insights into human brain function and the development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools [4–7].
In recent years, increased regulatory control has been achieved to respond to the increase in the number and complexity of TMS systems. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is widely accepted at international level and provides governments with a technical basis for health, safety, and environmental requirements [8], and TMS devices are designed on ISO principles. Generally, every country has its own market regulations. However, the European Union, due to the number of countries it integrates, and the FDA, due to its impact on the market, are the most recognized worldwide. The FDA only applies in the United States, but from the industrial perspective it has a great impact on scientific societies and end users.
The ISO 14971 defines risk management in the regulation of medical devices. Furthermore, ISO 13485 states that it is necessary to ensure that design and testing of the device are sufficient and effective, and that manufacturers uniformly meet the requirements for the establishment and maintenance of a quality management system. These principles are codified and harmonized by FDA in the Quality System Regulation (QSR) [9]. For TMS devices, manufacturers must identify safety measures and reduce every possible risk. The IEC establishes globally accepted guidelines to ensure the safety of electrical products [10]. Medical devices are specifically subject to the IEC-60601 family of standards, most importantly the general safety controls in IEC-60601-1, where the electromagnetic compatibility of devices is defined [11]. To the best of our knowledge, all commercial TMS devices adhere to internationally accepted standards.
Although all commercial equipment is compliant with the legal framework of the country of use, compliance with FDA certification procedures (in the USA) and CE marking (in the EU) are the norm, due to the size of the respective markets. Out of the commercially available stimulators we here identified, most are FDA-cleared and all of them are CE marked [12]. In addition to the full and adequate description of the TMS stimulus, aspects related to the reliability of the device, including safety and performance controls, must comply with several technical standards. However, no standards specific to the manufacture of TMS devices have been developed. Ideally, over time, a particular unified and harmonized standard for TMS devices (or non-invasive brain stimulation devices more generally) would emerge, along with a benchmarking framework, to be used alongside standards reflected in documents such as certificates of conformity, FDA regulations, quality certificates, etc. that are already in use [13, 14].
Within the set of TMS research prototypes, we can point out the existence of proposals for the development of home-made devices in nonclinical environments for self-improvement purposes [15, 16].
Commercial TMS systems and prototype devices
There are now several commercial TMS systems that have entered the market (see Fig 1), with varying degrees of transparency about their technical details and information available that is independent of the manufacturer. We note that several devices are marketed under more than one name: For example, CloudTMS (K173441) and Soterix Medical MEGA-TMS (K192823) correspond to the Neurosoft Neuro-MSD device, and the Deymed devices are marketed also by Brainbox Ltd. There is also the case of collaborations between different manufacturers: for example, Yingchi Techology’s "Hanix" device is the Brainsway system marketed in China.
Certification timeline for the different TMS trademarks (first time certificated).
The development of TMS devices is generally motivated by the clinical application of TMS with a requirement for patient-friendly usage [17], or development for discovery science which often requires technological development and prototypes for novel research questions [18, 19] (see Fig 2).
Applications that drive TMS device development.
For example, newly developed experimental devices now allow more extensive control over the pulse characteristics compared to clinical TMS devices [20, 21]. Such new developments are generally used for research first, but the technology may subsequently transfer to clinical TMS applications, with several examples of TMS prototypes being commercialised [22, 23].
TMS technology
The power circuit of a TMS unit consists of a high voltage (HV) supply (voltages in the order of 2000V and capable of supplying currents over 5000A), a HV capacitor which acts as an energy storage (and able to supply capacitance values of around 180 μF and voltages in the range of 1-3kV), a power switch (usually diodes or thyristors), and a stimulation coil. All these components must be designed to operate under high voltages and high currents. Existing commercial devices use the basic configuration in the pulse switch [24], i.e., a circuit based on thyristors and diodes (Silicon-Controlled Rectifiers, SCR technology) with less turn-off capability that allows current control through the thyristor and higher pulse current rating. Insulate Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGTBs) or Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistors (MOSFETs) are also used in the latest technology [25, 26]. These fully controllable switches can alter the voltage pulses and are easier to use due to their simple and fast turn-off behavior [27]. To the extent that such information is available, our database summarizes key technological features of different devices, but we encourage the field to further contribute such information where it is known.
Two different classes of stimulus waveforms can be distinguished: biphasic or monophasic [28, 29], although recent developments also allow for more flexible configuration of TMS pulse shapes [30, 31]. Ultimately, this waveform depends on the designed power electronic architecture based on IGBT, thyristors, or diodes-thyristors [20].
For repetitive stimulation protocols, stimulation frequencies are commonly in the range of 1 to 100Hz [32]. The technology sets the limits to the range of stimulation parameters including pulse intensity, frequency, and pulse width [33, 34]. As a rule of thumb, monophasic waveforms do not permit high frequency stimulation, whereas stimulation intensity may be limited for high stimulation frequencies, owing to the power bottlenecks created by such protocols [35]. Pulse shapes determine the physiological impact of TMS, emphasizing the relevance of summarizing the technical specifications of TMS devices. Concerning the shape of the coils, the majority of TMS coils are circular or figure-of-eight shaped, with a range of sizes [36]. For the purposes of this database, we did not review the shape and models of the coils due to the large number of coils and their varied applications [37, 38].
We here present an open access database (http://www.tmsbase.info) with key features and application of available commercial and non-commercial TMS devices, based on an review of the information available. The database (TMS platform) can help to address the need for defining standard parameters and technical determinants of stimulation characteristics of TMS devices. Moreover, this database can help researchers and clinicians compare the information provided from manufacturers [39] and select devices and protocols [40], that address their specific needs.
Methods: Source of data and search strategy
A bibliometric analysis was performed by identifying TMS manufacturers globally to create a comprehensive database (http://www.tmsbase.info). The goal is to provide a systematic overview of the different commercial TMS devices available on the international market, as well as their most important technical and clinical characteristics, and the emerging trends TMS experimental devices.
Fig 3 shows the number of scientific publications and studies related involving commercial TMS devices to date (Fig 1). The first commercial systems have been used extensively for research and are currently the most widely used devices in the clinical environment. However, the latest commercial equipment to reach the market is also starting to be used in research applications.
For the commercial devices, we performed the literature search on Google Patents and Google Scholar databases, using the commercial name of the stimulation device followed by the word "TMS". The total result of the search procedure is shown in Fig 3. Since the number of articles related to the first commercial TMS devices is very high, for this work we have considered as a priority the studies provided for each commercial device in the last few years. In addition, a Google search was performed with the words "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation device" for a more accurate result. We include as a source of information each user manual with technical specifications and other technical data. Additional information about each of the commercial devices can be found in the websites of each company. We note that some information will inevitably not be accessible due to being proprietary or not being disclosed by companies. However, we would like to highlight that all the information included in the manuscript is public and from open access repositories. Information provided in company manuals or websites may be incomplete or only provide estimates for user guidance. Such information should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt when attempting a detailed technical appraisal of each device, and where possible, we have indicated the source of the information in the table. However, the database also affords the opportunity to update and complete this information in the future.
For the experimental (non-commercial) TMS devices we performed the literature research on Google Scholar database with the following search terms: “transcranial magnetic stimulation”, “TMS”, “circuit”, “technology”, “topology”, “components” and “coils”. A record was considered relevant if included a circuit topology explanation or if a detailed coil development was enclosed. A total of 283 articles and patents were searched, of which only 117 were relevant to this study according to the criteria mentioned above. We applied no further criteria for selecting the articles.
Results
Commercial TMS devices
In the following, we summarize some of the key features common to many commercial TMS devices (for further information access the web page with the database). Table 1 presents the thirteen commercial TMS manufacturers on the market. Of the thirteen manufacturers, six include families with at least five different devices. There are two manufacturers that include three different systems in their portfolio and only one manufacturer in the market includes two systems. The remaining four manufacturers offer only one TMS system.
Power electronics architecture
Table 1 shows a total of 47 different devices from thirteen manufacturers. The architecture of the stimulation circuitry in these devices is based on parallel assembly of thyristors and diodes depending on the stimulation pulse waveform. Regarding the power electronic circuit, and as shown in Table 1, half of the devices include thyristors and diodes, two devices include new power components such as IGBTs or MOSFETs as a result of the advances in semiconductor technology. For four devices we could not identify information on the topology of their power electronics.
Pulse shapes
As shown in Table 1, fifteen of the commercial devices that we identified have the option of monophasic pulses. It shows twenty-nine systems that can be identified as biphasic and three systems that could not be classified with respect to their waveform. Of the fifteen monophasic, only one has a pulse width of 70μs, while other five devices have a pulse width of 80μs. Three systems offer the possibility of varying the pulse width from 70μs to 120μs and no information is available for the remaining devices. As mentioned above, twenty-nine devices have biphasic waveform option. Seven devices work with pulses below 200μs and there are twelve biphasic TMS systems with time widths ranging from 200μs to 350μs. Finally, two systems operate with pulse widths above 400μs and only one system offers the possibility of varying the pulse width in a temporal range between 280μs and 400μs. For the remaining seven biphasic devices we have not found any information available.
Stimulation coils
Although commercial TMS systems offer a wide variety of patient coils, their basic geometry is very similar [41, 42]. However, the strategy for coil heat dissipation varies between the different systems, and includes internal air venting, refrigerant flow cooling or passive refrigerant cooling [35]. The different types of coil cooling can also modify the conditions under which the stimulation can be delivered [43, 44]. Several systems also have optional sham coils [6, 45, 46] that offer scalp and sound stimulation without effective stimulation of cortex, with near identical appearances to active coils.
Stimulation protocols and output intensity
Several stimulation patterns and protocols [47] are available for commercial devices, broadly falling within these categories: single pulses, paired pulses, repetitive pulses [2], and patterned repetitive protocols [48]. All of these have been evaluated and work under the support of the guidelines and recommendations to prevent adverse effects during the application of TMS in research and clinical settings [47].
Magnetic field strength is perhaps one of the parameters that best characterizes commercial TMS systems. Unfortunately, each manufacturer identifies the field strength differently. Some manufacturers provide the maximum magnetic field strength, which varies from 0.5T to 7.5T, while others indicate the energy delivered to the patient per pulse in Joules or the maximum electric field strength in V/m. Another parameter that characterizes TMS systems is the pulse rate. Most commercial systems offer maximum pulse frequencies between 10Hz up to 100Hz. However, as can be seen in Table 1, there are two systems that achieve pulse frequencies of 150Hz and 200Hz. In addition, there are two manufacturers that, upon customer’s request, can provide systems with pulse frequencies of that reach 1kHz and 2kHz respectively. Currently, controllable pulses (cTMS), in which the amplitude, width and shape of the pulse can be modified, are only available for one device on the market.
Commercial TMS lifetime
The average lifetime of TMS devices is determined both by a limited number of years–this varies between 5 and 10 years depending on the manufacturer–and by the number of pulses generated by the system (between 106 and 2x107 discharges, which depends on the lifetime of the capacitor). The stimulation coils also have their own lifetime depending on the number of discharges. Manufacturers also provide information on connection requirements and power consumption, as well as applied standards for electromagnetic compatibility.
Research prototypes
Fig 4 shows an overview of the workflow leading to classification of new TMS systems. The prototypes found in the literature are classified according to the objective of each of the systems. We here distinguish five different categories (see Table 2): i) portable TMS devices ii) ultra-high frequency devices iii) controllable, programmable, and modular systems, iv) noise reduction systems, and v) multiple-stimulation devices.
Portable TMS device
The possibility of portable TMS systems is attractive for the treatment of any pathology, and a number of portable devices have been developed and marketed [56–58]. For example, the eNeura device is characterised by single-pulse stimulation (sTMS), with a stimulation frequency of very low Hertz: 1 stimulation pulse every 4 to 15 minutes [59, 60]. This makes it easy to optimise the weight, volume of the system and its components.
Ultra-high frequency devices
Other devices have been developed for delivery of bespoke high frequency protocols, such as the quadri-pulse theta-burst stimulation (qTBS) protocol. This protocol consists of four single-sine-wave pulses which are given at an ultra-high pulse repetition rate of 200Hz or 666Hz, and a burst repetition rate of 5Hz [48]. In this type of device, a high voltage power supply charges the energy storage capacitor constantly and so the discharging takes less than half of the charging time. To reach these frequencies, power switches in the circuit allow the release of stimuli very close to each other and with short oscillation periods. This protocol has been introduced to the market by companies such as Mag&More and Brainbox, with the stimulators PowerMAG QPS [61] and DuoMAG MP-Quad [62] respectively.
Controllable, programmable, and modular systems
TMS devices focused on programmable pulse waveforms, where pulse width, intensity, polarity, and inter-stimuli intervals [63–65] can generate flexible pulse waveforms such as consecutive rectangular pulses with a predetermined time interval, width, and polarity. Therefore, these devices are suitable for a range of applications, e.g., analysis of the stimulated neurons and their activation characteristics [66].
Advances in power electronics technology have led to more precise control of the power required in TMS devices [67]. However, existing technology has limitations regarding the ability to control the shape of the generated electrical stimulus [68]. Thus, TMS devices have been divided into independent modules of lower intensity [69], capable of dynamically modifying the output voltage and covering the working range of a conventional stimulator [70].
Noise reduction systems
The sound generated by a TMS device at the time of treatment has negative effects on the patient, both on their auditory system and by activating regions of the brain involuntarily [71–73]. Studies focusing on noise reduction have examined three different solutions for noise reduction. Firstly, the pulse width reduction, with dominant spectral power above 20kHz, has advantages in the acoustic domain because high frequencies are easier to suppress, and human perception is notably reduced [74, 75]. However, due to the neural membrane time constant, the amplitude of the pulses (hence the peak coil voltage) must be increased to achieve neural stimulation [76]. Secondly, a proper assembly of winding core and casing are proposed to reduce mechanical deformation in the casing, and thus the noise [77]. A phase-shifted elastic coupling between the winding and the coil housing is normally used. In addition, a rigid, frictional viscoelastic layer covering the winding block increases acoustic energy dissipation [75]. Finally, external active noise cancellation strategies are proposed, whereby acoustic sounds (noise) generated by the TMS device are recorded in real-time, and the coil noise is reduced synchronously after the first stimulation sequence [78]. This method reduces the coil noise synchronously after the first stimulation sequence and in the subsequent treatment protocol.
Multiple-stimulation devices
Multi-channel systems consist of a unique stimulator design with multiple coils, each one controlled by a specific channel and with independent control [22]. By contrast, multi-locus systems consist of the arrangement of different coil patterns, placed in a stack configuration, for the stimulation of brain neighbouring areas and the generation of diverse shapes of electric fields [79, 80]. Some of the coil winding patterns encountered are a figure-of-eight coil and a matched four-leaf-cloves coil, a figure-of-eight coil overlapped with an oval coil, and three overlapping triangular coil arrays among others.
New developments of multi-coil systems now provide the possibility to stimulate several brain regions simultaneously with one device and a single coil [22]. This allows the different stimulation coils to be activated electronically, without the need for physical triggering by the clinician [79]. Moreover, multi-locus systems can control the location and orientation of the peak of the induced electric field within a wider cortical region.
Discussion
Advances in TMS technology can spawn more efficient stimulation protocols for basic research and clinical applications. Several reviews include evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of rTMS that comprise not only a historical context of the technology, but also its principles and mechanisms of action [2, 32]. Other reviews provide overviews about new stimulation coils, new pulse sequences and novel waveforms for stimulation, with an emphasis on safety recommendations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues [47] or a bibliometric analysis revealing the publication patterns and emerging trends of rTMS [5].
From our analysis it becomes clear that there is substantial variation to which degree different TMS devices will deliver such protocols, and it is largely unclear to what extent such variation may affect the efficacy and physiological consequences of TMS. In the absence of standardization and homogeneity between different commercial TMS devices, the stimulation parameters are not the same, as discussed previously. For example, in the case of the Theta-Burst protocol, there is a trade-off between frequency and maximum stimulation intensity, with a strong dependence on the TMS model used with a direct impact on the effectiveness of the therapy [33].
However, it is well established that pulse-shape is a key determinant of the physiological impact of TMS, and our overview helps assessment of device differences and how these may impact on the efficacy of TMS. Recent devices, for example, allow for flexible control of the stimulation waveform, with the possibility for more rectangular pulses and continuous control of parameters such as pulse width and the positive/negative phase amplitude ratio of the pulse [113]. With the recent development of flexible systems with pulse parameter control, development of future TMS devices is likely to exploit the use of variable stimulus waveforms further, with our database serving as springboard for their comparison.
A recent systematic review includes a summary of the design, positioning, modelling, and optimization of experimental coils with a taxonomic approach [19], with further work emphasizing pulse source technology in coils and TMS-compatible external systems [115]. Coils for deep brain TMS use complex multi-coil designs [116], and multi-channel excitation systems seek to improve focality of stimulation [117]. With this rapidly developing landscape of TMS devices, and no agreed benchmarking framework in place, there is a growing need for detailed synthesis of important technical commonalities and differences of TMS devices.
The lack of standardization and the high variability in the technical characteristics of TMS systems (including pulse duration and shape, output intensity, coil designs, power reductions at high intensity and frequency, etc.) make it difficult to replicate conditions in studies when using a different device. This hampers the search for individualized therapy for clinicians, prescribers, and researchers, and making all this information available can facilitate cross-device comparison, development of common standards, but also the development of novel TMS technology. In the framework of this review, we identify the possible sources of variability in the effects of TMS technique from a technological point of view, by focusing on the device features. However, we have not considered other external sources that could impact on the variability of the TMS effects as procedures [118], application of reference values [119], or experience of the operators [120].
Our overview includes both commercial and custom TMS devices, thus covering a gap that with a comprehensive analysis of technical characteristics not provided elsewhere. The approach with which we summarize TMS technology allows for a broader view of the current status of currently available systems.
Conclusion
A comprehensive review of both commercial and experimental technology used in transcranial magnetic stimulation systems has been developed. This study includes an open access database (http://www.tmsbase.info) which allows clinicians, prescribers, and researchers to consult the technical characteristics of the equipment and include new systems that they identify of interest to the community. The database will be accessible on a hosing service from a web page, and it will have a contact option where the user will be able to provide information about new devices in a formulary with the TMS that appear in the market.
We here show the latest developments and applications in TMS technology as well as current trends in TMS architecture. The absence of standardization and high variability in the parameter metrics of these systems prevents comparison between different devices, making it difficult for clinicians, prescribers, and researchers to make the right election. Thus, a benchmarking scheme as an initial seed for future international standardization would be of interest to researchers and clinicians as a tool for comparison between TMS systems. To inform the choice of TMS platforms for specific research and therapeutic applications and guide future technology development for neuromodulation devices.
References
- 1.
Wassermann E, Epstein C, Ziemann U, Walsh V. Oxford Handbook of Transcranial Stimulation. New York: Oxford Press; 2008.
- 2. Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, di Lazzaro V, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014–2018). Clinical Neurophysiology 2020;131:474–528. pmid:31901449
- 3. Chen R, Gerloff C, Classen J, Wassermann EM, Hallett M, Cohen LG. Safety of different inter-train intervals for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and recommendations for safe ranges of stimulation parameters. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;105(6):415–421. pmid:9448642
- 4. Chail A, Saini RK, Bhat PS, Srivastava K, Chauhan V. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: A review of its evolution and current applications. Ind Psychiatry J. 2018;27(2):172–180. pmid:31359968
- 5. Zheng KY, Dai GY, Lan Y, Wang XQ. Trends of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:106. Published 2020 Feb 26. pmid:32174808
- 6. Takano M, Havlicek J, Phillips D, Nakajima S, Mimura M, Noda Y. Development of an Advanced Sham Coil for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Examination of Its Specifications. J Pers Med. 2021;11(11):1058. Published 2021 Oct 21. pmid:34834410
- 7.
Chen M, Cline CC, Frost KL, Kimberley TJ, Nemanich ST, Gillick BT, et al. Advances and challenges in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) research on motor systems. Engineering in Medicine: Advances and Challenges, Elsevier; 2018, p. 283–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813068-1.00011-7.
- 8. Lamph S. Regulation of medical devices outside the European Union. J R Soc Med. 2012;105 (Suppl 1):S12–S21. pmid:22508968
- 9.
U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION. Quality System (QS) Regulation/Medical Device Good Manufacturing Practices. 2022.
- 10. Bikson M, Paneri B, Mourdoukoutas A, et al. Limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (LOTES-2017): Engineering principles, regulatory statutes, and industry standards for wellness, over-the-counter, or prescription devices with low risk. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(1):134–157. pmid:29122535
- 11.
List of IEC 60601 Standards 2017.
- 12. Mishra S. FDA, CE mark or something else?-Thinking fast and slow. Indian Heart J. 2017;69(1):1–5. pmid:28228288
- 13.
Palatnik de Sousa I, Costa Monteiro E. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Conformity Assessment. XXI IMEKO World Congress “Measurement in Research and Industry,” Prague, Czech Republic: 2015.
- 14. Bergsland J, Elle OJ, Fosse E. Barriers to medical device innovation. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2014;7:205–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S43369.
- 15. Fisicaro F, Lanza G, Bella R, Pennisi M. "Self-Neuroenhancement": The Last Frontier of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation? J Clin Neurol. 2020 Jan;16(1):158–159. pmid:31942774; PMCID: PMC6974812.
- 16. Bikson M, Bestmann S, Edwards D. Neuroscience: transcranial devices are not playthings. Nature. 2013 Sep 12;501(7466):167. pmid:24025832; PMCID: PMC4326099.
- 17. Turi Z, Lenz M, Paulus W, Mittner M, Vlachos A. Selecting stimulation intensity in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation studies: A systematic review between 1991 and 2020. Eur J Neurosci. 2021;53(10):3404–3415. pmid:33754397
- 18.
Peterchev AV. Digital Pulse-Width Modulation Control in Power Electronic Circuits: Theory and Applications. Doctor of Philosophy. University of California, Berkley, 2006.
- 19. Gutierrez MI, Poblete-Naredo I, Mercado-Gutierrez JA, et al. Devices and Technology in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 2022;12(9):1218. Published 2022 Sep 9. pmid:36138954
- 20. Peterchev AV, Jalinous R, Lisanby SH. Peterchev AV, Spellman T, Lisanby SH. cTMS: A novel TMS device inducing near rectangular pulses with controllable pulse width. Neuropsychopharmacology 2006;31:130.
- 21. Goetz SM, Murphy DLK, Peterchev AV. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Device with Reduced Acoustic Noise. IEEE Magn Lett 2014;5:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/LMAG.2014.2351776.
- 22. Roth Y, Levkovitz Y, Pell GS, Ankry M, Zangen A. Safety and characterization of a novel multi-channel TMS stimulator. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(2):194–205. pmid:24529836
- 23. Peterchev AV, DʼOstilio K, Rothwell JC, Murphy DL. Controllable pulse parameter transcranial magnetic stimulator with enhanced circuit topology and pulse shaping. J Neural Eng. 2014;11(5):056023. pmid:25242286
- 24. Charlet De Sauvage R, Dondon P, Veyret B, Lagroye I. Thyristor triggering by coil zero-current crossing detection in a magnetic stimulator for living tissues. 2011 IEEE 9th International New Circuits and Systems Conference, NEWCAS 2011 2011:474–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/NEWCAS.2011.5981322.
- 25. Memarian Sorkhabi M, Wendt K, Rogers D, Denison T. Paralleling insulated-gate bipolar transistors in the H-bridge structure to reduce current stress. SN Appl Sci. 2021;3(4):406. pmid:33748674
- 26. Goetz SM, Li Z, Liang X, Zhang C, Lukic SM, Peterchev AV. Control of Modular Multilevel Converter with Parallel Connectivity—Application to Battery Systems. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2016;32:8381–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2645884.
- 27. Schwitzgebel F, Kuder M, Kersten A, Meisl C, Weyh T. Design and Testing of a Novel Transcranial Magnetic Stimulatorwith Adjustable Pulse Dynamics and High Current Capability (>2 kA) based on a Modular Cascaded H-Bridge Inverter Topology. PCIM Europe digital days. International Exhibition and Conference for Power Electronics, Intelligent Motion, Renewable Energy and Energy Management, 2021;1–8.
- 28. Kammer T, Beck S, Thielscher A, Laubis-Herrmann U, Topka H. Motor thresholds in humans: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study comparing different pulse waveforms, current directions and stimulator types. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112(2):250–258. pmid:11165526
- 29. Barker AT, Garnham CW, Freeston IL. Magnetic nerve stimulation: the effect of waveform on efficiency, determination of neural membrane time constants and the measurement of stimulator output. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1991;43:227–237. pmid:1773760
- 30. Li Z, Zhang J, Peterchev AV, Goetz SM. Modular pulse synthesizer for transcranial magnetic stimulation with fully adjustable pulse shape and sequence [published online ahead of print, 2022 Oct 25]. J Neural Eng. 2022;10.1088/1741-2552/ac9d65. pmid:36301685
- 31. Sorkhabi MM, Wendt K, O’Shea J, Denison T. A digital transcranial magnetic stimulator for generating arbitrary pulse-shapes and patterns. Brain Stimul: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2021;14:1613–4.
- 32. Lefaucheur JP, André-Obadia N, Antal A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125(11):2150–2206. pmid:25034472
- 33. Gutiérrez-Muto AM, Castilla J, Freire M, Oliviero A, Tornero J. Theta burst stimulation: Technical aspects about TMS devices. Brain Stimul. 2020;13(3):562–564. pmid:32289677
- 34. Deng ZD, Lisanby SH, Peterchev AV. Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(1):1–13. pmid:22483681
- 35. Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A; Safety of TMS Consensus Group. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(12):2008–2039. pmid:19833552
- 36. Sathi KA, Hosain MK, Hossain MA. Analysis of Induced Field in the Brain Tissue by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Using Halo-V Assembly Coil. Neurol Res Int. 2022;2022:7424564. Published 2022 Jul 14. pmid:35873732
- 37. Goetz SM, Deng ZD. The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2017;29(2):115–145. pmid:28443696
- 38. Mennemeier MS, Triggs WJ, Chelette KC, Woods AJ, Kimbrell TA, Dornhoffer JL. Sham transcranial magnetic stimulation using electrical stimulation of the scalp. Brain Stimul 2009;2:168–73. pmid:20160893
- 39. Novey W. Are all rTMS machines equal? New research suggests there may be clinically significant differences. Ment Illn. 2019;11(1):8125. Published 2019 Jun 11. pmid:31281610
- 40. Miron JP, Jodoin VD, Lespérance P, Blumberger DM. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depressive disorder: basic principles and future directions. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2021;11:20451253211042696. Published 2021 Sep 23. pmid:34589203
- 41. Spampinato D, Ibáñez J, Spanoudakis M, Hammond P, Rothwell JC. Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation: The role of coil type from distinct manufacturers. Brain Stimul. 2020;13(1):153–156. pmid:31631057
- 42. Zangen A, Roth Y, Voller B, Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain regions: evidence for efficacy of the H-coil. Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;116(4):775–779. pmid:15792886
- 43. Koponen LM, Nieminen JO, Ilmoniemi RJ. Minimum-energy coils for transcranial magnetic stimulation: application to focal stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(1):124–134. pmid:25458713
- 44. Epstein CM, Davey KR. Iron-core coils for transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;19(4):376–381. pmid:12436092
- 45. Smith JE, Peterchev AV. Electric field measurement of two commercial active/sham coils for transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neural Eng. 2018;15(5):054001. pmid:29932429
- 46. Gordon PC, Desideri D, Belardinelli P, Zrenner C, Ziemann U. Comparison of cortical EEG responses to realistic sham versus real TMS of human motor cortex. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(6):1322–1330. pmid:30143417
- 47. Rossi S, Antal A, Bestmann S, et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132(1):269–306. pmid:33243615
- 48. Jung NH, Gleich B, Gattinger N, et al. Double-Sine-Wave Quadri-Pulse Theta Burst Stimulation of Precentral Motor Hand Representation Induces Bidirectional Changes in Corticomotor Excitability. Front Neurol. 2021;12:673560. Published 2021 Jun 28. pmid:34262522
- 49.
The Magstim Company Limited (2009). MAGSTIM® RAPID2 P/N 3576-23-09 OPERATING MANUAL.
- 50.
Tonica Elektronik A/S and MagVenture A/S, rev. 5.0 (2018). MagPro R30, MagPro R30 with MagOption, MagPro X100 and MagPro X100 with MagOption User Guide–US-edition. Denmark.
- 51.
DEYMED Diagnostic s.r.o. (2019). DuoMAG Magnetic Stimulation: Technical description and instructions for use, version: DM004-IFU1902EN.
- 52.
Neurosoft Ltd. (2014) Technical Manual Neuro-MS/D Magnetic Stimulator.
- 53.
Shenzhen Yingchi Technology Co., Ltd. Operator´s Manual RDU0017042001 Rev 1.0.7.
- 54.
Neuronetics Inc (2020) NeuroStar System: Instructions for use 52-4US1E-030 IFU Revision H for NeuroStar Version 3.5.
- 55.
eNeura Inc (2020) sTMS mini: Instructions for Use. sTMS mini Physician Manual LBL-0123-US Rev G 01/2020.
- 56. Weatherall M, Bhola R, Giffin N, Goadsby P. Post market pilot programme with single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for acute treatment of migraine: SpringTMSTM use in migraine. J Headache Pain 2013;14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-14-s1-p222.
- 57. Barker AT, Shields K. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Basic Principles and Clinical Applications in Migraine. Headache. 2017;57(3):517–524. pmid:28028801
- 58. Charlet De Sauvage R, Beuter A, Lagroye I, Veyret B. Design and construction of a portable Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) apparatus for migraine treatment. Journal of Medical Devices, Transactions of the ASME 2010;4(1): 015002.
- 59. Starling AJ, Tepper SJ, Marmura MJ, et al. A multicenter, prospective, single arm, open label, observational study of sTMS for migraine prevention (ESPOUSE Study). Cephalalgia. 2018;38(6):1038–1048. pmid:29504483
- 60. Bhola R, Kinsella E, Giffin N, et al. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for the acute treatment of migraine: evaluation of outcome data for the UK post market pilot program. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:535. pmid:26055242
- 61. Singhai S. Effect of Adjunctive Quadri–Pulse Stimulation to Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Symptoms of Schizophrenia-A Randomized Sham Controlled Study. Central Institute of Psychiatry, 2019.
- 62. Kimura I, Ugawa Y, Hayashi MJ, Amano K. Quadripulse stimulation: A replication study with a newly developed stimulator. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(3):579–581. pmid:35367398
- 63. Memarian Sorkhabi M, Wendt K, O’Shea J, Denison T. Pulse width modulation-based TMS: Primary motor cortex responses compared to conventional monophasic stimuli. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(4):980–983. pmid:35792319
- 64. Wendt K, Sorkhabi MM, O’Shea J, Cagnan H, Denison T. Comparison between the modelled response of primary motor cortex neurons to pulse-width modulated and conventional TMS stimuli. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2021;2021:6058–6061. pmid:34892498
- 65. Goetz SM, Pfaeffl M, Huber J, Singer M, Marquardt R, Weyh T. Circuit topology and control principle for a first magnetic stimulator with fully controllable waveform. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:4700–4703. pmid:23366977
- 66. Bohning DE, Shastri A, Wassermann EM, et al. BOLD-f MRI response to single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;11(6):569–574. pmid:10862054
- 67. Xiong H, Wang Y, Liu J, Chen Y, Ji Y. Development of compact rapid capacitor charging power supply for TMS. IET Power Electronics 2020;13:2651–7. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0032.
- 68. Sorkhabi MM, Benjaber M, Wendt K, West TO, Rogers DJ, Denison T. Programmable Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Modulation Approach for the Generation of Controllable Magnetic Stimuli. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021;68(6):1847–1858. pmid:32946379
- 69. Bahamonde I H, Rivera S, Li Z, Goetz S, Peterchev A v., Lizana F R. Different parallel connections generated by the Modular Multilevel Series/Parallel Converter: an overview. IECON 2019-45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2019;1:6114–9
- 70.
Neukirchinger F, Kersten A, Kuder M, Lohse B, Schwitzgebel F, Weyh T. Where Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is headed to: The Modular Extended Magnetic Stimulator. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2021 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe), IEEE; 2021, p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEurope51590.2021.9584674.
- 71. Goetz SM, Murphy DLK, Peterchev AV. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Device with Reduced Acoustic Noise. IEEE Magn Lett 2014;5:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/LMAG.2014.2351776.
- 72. Dhamne SC, Kothare RS, Yu C, et al. A measure of acoustic noise generated from transcranial magnetic stimulation coils. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(3):432–434. pmid:24582370
- 73. Goetz SM, Lisanby SH, Murphy DL, Price RJ, O’Grady G, Peterchev AV. Impulse noise of transcranial magnetic stimulation: measurement, safety, and auditory neuromodulation. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(1):161–163. pmid:25468074
- 74. Peterchev AV, Koponen L, Gomez L, Zeng Z, Hamdan R, Wood E, et al. How focal and quiet can TMS be? Brain Stimul 2021;14:1751.
- 75. Peterchev AV, Murphy DL, Goetz SM. Quiet transcranial magnetic stimulation: Status and future directions. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:226–229. pmid:26736241
- 76. Barker AT, Garnham CW, Freeston IL. Magnetic nerve stimulation: the effect of waveform on efficiency, determination of neural membrane time constants and the measurement of stimulator output. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1991;43:227–237. pmid:1773760
- 77. Koponen LM, Goetz SM, Peterchev AV. Systems and Devices for Quiet Transcranial Magnetic Stimulaton and Method of Using Same. US 63/079, 2022.
- 78. Liu C, Ding H, Fang X, He Z, Wang Z. Noise analysis and active noise control strategy of transcranial magnetic stimulation device. AIP Adv 2019;9:085010. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115522.
- 79. Nurmi S, Karttunen J, Souza VH, Ilmoniemi RJ, Nieminen JO. Trade-off between stimulation focality and the number of coils in multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neural Eng. 2021;18(6):10.1088/1741-2552/ac3207. Published 2021 Nov 12. pmid:34673563
- 80. Smith MC, Sievenpiper DF. A Dense Magnetic Coil Array with Multi-locus and Multi-site Patterning. 2021. https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/A_Dense_Magnetic_Coil_Array_with_Multi-locus_and_Multi-site_Patterning/16992559/files/31430455.pdf
- 81. de Sauvage RC, Lagroye I, Veyret B. TMS apparatus for treating migraine with aura: mapping of the current induced in a human head. Thirty-one Annual Technical Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society 2009.
- 82. de Sauvage RC, Lagroye I, Veyret B. Mapping of the current induced in a human head by a TMS apparatus designed for the treatment of migraine with aura. 9ème colloque Société des Neurosciences 2009.
- 83. Borckardt JJ, Walker J, Branham RK, et al. Development and evaluation of a portable sham transcranial magnetic stimulation system. Brain Stimul. 2008;1(1):52–59. pmid:19424444
- 84. Jung NH, Gleich B, Gattinger N, et al. Quadri-Pulse Theta Burst Stimulation using Ultra-High Frequency Bursts—A New Protocol to Induce Changes in Cortico-Spinal Excitability in Human Motor Cortex. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168410. Published 2016 Dec 15. pmid:27977758
- 85. Gattinger N, Jung NH, Mall V, Gleich B. Transcranial magnetic stimulation devices for biphasic and polyphasic ultra-high frequency protocols. Biol Eng Med 2018;3:1–8.
- 86. Sorkhabi MM, Gingell F, Wendt K, et al. Design Analysis and Circuit Topology Optimization for Programmable Magnetic Neurostimulator. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2021;2021:6384–6389. pmid:34892573
- 87. Denison T, Rogers DJ, Memarian Sorkhabi M. Generation of controllable magnetic stimuli. WO2021/176219, 2021.
- 88. Peterchev AV, Murphy DL, Lisanby SH. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulator with controllable pulse parameters. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(3):036016. pmid:21540487
- 89. Gattinger N, Moessnang G, Gleich B. flexTMS—a novel repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation device with freely programmable stimulus currents. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59(7):1962–1970. pmid:22531742
- 90. Delvendahl I, Gattinger N, Berger T, Gleich B, Siebner H, Mall V. A physiological characterization of biphasic transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology 2013;124:e176–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLINPH.2013.04.308.
- 91. Lohse B, Schwitzgebel F, Neukirchinger F, Kersten A, Kuder M, Weyh T. The Modular Multilevel Magnetic Stimulator: Energy-Efficiency, Pre-Charging and Overlap Protection. IECON Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference) 2021;2021-October. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON48115.2021.9589863.
- 92. Sebesta C, Torres D, Wang B, Asfouri J, Li Z, Duret G, et al. Sub-second multi-channel magnetic control of select neural circuits in behaving flies. bioRxiv 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.15.435264.
- 93. Zeng Z, Koponen LM, Hamdan R, Li Z, Goetz SM, Peterchev AV. Modular multilevel TMS device with wide output range and ultrabrief pulse capability for sound reduction. J Neural Eng. 2022;19(2):10.1088/1741-2552/ac572c. Published 2022 Mar 17. pmid:35189604
- 94. Goetz S, Murphy DL, Peterchev AV. Device and Method for Low-Noise Magnetic Neurostimulator. US2017/0189710, 2017.
- 95. Koponen L, Goetz S, Peterchev AV. P184 Modeling and reducing acoustic noise acoustic noise in transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology 2020;131:e118.
- 96. Cobos Sánchez C, Cabello MR, Olozábal ÁQ, Pantoja MF. Design of TMS coils with reduced Lorentz forces: application to concurrent TMS-fMRI. J Neural Eng. 2020;17(1):016056. Published 2020 Feb 12. pmid:32049657
- 97. Sánchez CC, Garcia-Pacheco FJ, Rodriguez JMG, Hill JR. An inverse boundary element method computational framework for designing optimal TMS coils. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2018;88:156–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGANABOUND.2017.11.002.
- 98. Jiang R, Jansen BH, Sheth BR, Chen J. Dynamic multi-channel TMS with reconfigurable coil. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013;21(3):370–375. pmid:23193321
- 99. Ge S, Jiang R, Wang R, Chen J. Design of a dynamic transcranial magnetic stimulation coil system. J Med Syst. 2014;38(8):64. pmid:24957390
- 100. Zangen A, Yiftach R, Mirando PC, Hazani D, Hallet M. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation System and Methods. WO2006/134598, 2006.
- 101. Li J, Cao H, Zhao Z, Zheng M, Liu Y, He J, et al. A Study on the Multi-Channel TMS Device. IEEE Trans Magn 2017;53:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2017.2708749.
- 102. Li J, Cao H, Zhao Z, Zheng M, Ren Z, Sun Y, et al. The development of the multi-channel TMS device. 2017 IEEE International Magnetics Conference, INTERMAG 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/INTMAG.2017.8008040.
- 103. Liu J, Tian K, Xiong H, Zheng Y. A fast and efficient algorithm for multi-channel transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) signal denoising. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2022;60(9):2479–2492. pmid:35876998
- 104. Koponen LM, Nieminen JO, Ilmoniemi RJ. Multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation-theory and implementation. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(4):849–855. pmid:29627272
- 105. Tervo AE, Metsomaa J, Nieminen JO, Sarvas J, Ilmoniemi RJ. Automated search of stimulation targets with closed-loop transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 2020;220: 117082. pmid:32593801
- 106. Nieminen JO, Sinisalo H, Souza VH, et al. Multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation system for electronically targeted brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(1):116–124. pmid:34818580
- 107. Nieminen J, Sinisalo H, Souza V, Malmi M, Yuryev M, Tervo A, et al. Agile TMS: A multi-locus system for rapid and automatic spatial targeting and mapping. Brain Stimul: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2021;14:1750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.545.
- 108. Smith MC, Li A, Sievenpiper DF. A Multifunction Dense Array System with Reconfigurable Depth of Penetration. IEEE J Electromagn RF Microw Med Biol 2021;5:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/JERM.2020.2995664.
- 109. Souza VH, Nieminen JO, Tugin S, Koponen LM, Baffa O, Ilmoniemi RJ. TMS with fast and accurate electronic control: Measuring the orientation sensitivity of corticomotor pathways. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(2):306–315. pmid:35038592
- 110. Tervo AE, Nieminen JO, Lioumis P, et al. Closed-loop optimization of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography feedback. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(2):523–531. pmid:35337598
- 111. Navarro de Lara LI, Daneshzand M, Mascarenas A, et al. A 3-axis coil design for multichannel TMS arrays. Neuroimage. 2021;224:117355. pmid:32916290
- 112. Navarro de Lara LI, Stockmann J, Daneshzand M, Mascarenas A, Paulson D, Makarov S, et al. A 28-channel receive-only imaging coil array for concurrent multichannel TMS and fMRI acquisition at 3T. Brain Stimul: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2021;14:1699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.355.
- 113. Daneshzand M, Makarov S, Navarro de Lara LI, Wartman W, Raij T, Nummenmaa A. Computational targeting and dosing in navigated multichannel TMS arrays. Brain Stimul: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2021;14:1701–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.363.
- 114. Peterchev AV, Jalinous R, Lisanby SH. A transcranial magnetic stimulator inducing near-rectangular pulses with controllable pulse width (cTMS). IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55(1):257–266. pmid:18232369
- 115. Peterchev AV, Deng ZD, Goetz SM. Advances in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Technology. Brain Stimulation: Methodologies and Interventions, 2015, p. 165–89.
- 116. Rastogi P, Lee EG, Hadimani RL, Jiles DC. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Development of a Novel Deep-Brain Triple-Halo Coil. IEEE Magn Lett 2019;10:1–5.
- 117. Xiong H, Zheng C, Liu J. A multi-channel high-speed magnetic field detection system based on FPGA for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Rev Sci Instrum 2018;89(6):065108. pmid:29960514
- 118. Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R, Cohen LG, Daskalakis Z, Di Iorio R, et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Jun;126(6):1071–1107. Epub 2015 Feb 10. pmid:25797650; PMCID: PMC6350257.
- 119. Cantone M, Lanza G, Fisicaro F, Bella R, Ferri R, Pennisi G, et al. Sex-specific reference values for total, central, and peripheral latency of motor evoked potentials from a large cohort. Front Hum Neurosci. 2023 Jun 9;17:1152204. pmid:37362949; PMCID: PMC10288153.
- 120.
Faro A, Giordano D, Kavasidis I, et al. An interactive tool for customizing clinical transacranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) experiments. In: XII Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2010. IFMBE proceedings. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2010:200–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13039-7_50