Standardizing <scp>TMS</scp> Intensity Across Different Coils Using Individualized Electric Field Modeling

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Brain Mapping
Published
2026-05-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.70550
Primary Topic
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Standardizing TMS Intensity Across Different Coils Using Individualized Electric Field Modeling

Evgenii Kim, Netri Pajankar, D. Louise Edwards, Sergey N Makaroff et al.
Human Brain Mapping
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
article

Standardizing TMS Intensity Across Different Coils Using Individualized Electric Field Modeling

Evgenii Kim, Netri Pajankar, D. Louise Edwards, Sergey N Makaroff, Mohammad Daneshzand, Danyal Fareed Bhutto, T Raij, Teresa Jacobson Kimberley, Keren Zhu, Aapo Nummenmaa, Parker Kotlarz
article en

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.

Human Brain MappingVol. 47(8)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (US), Harvard University (US), Thomas Jefferson University (US), MGH Institute of Health Professions (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging (US), Moss Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.