Effect of coil positioning and orientation of the quadruple butterfly coil during transcranial magnetic stimulation
Source abstract
Abstract
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. It is a proven technique that is safe and considered very effective when compared to conventional brain surgery or drug therapy. Researchers and clinicians are interested in understanding the distribution of the induced electric field (E-Field) during TMS and determining its effectiveness in treating neurological disorders. TMS studies are primarily focused on enhancing the focality and depth of penetration of the induced electric field in order to increase its effectiveness. Coil orientation has been confirmed to have an effect on the magnitude and direction of the induced E-Field. In this paper, we study the effect of the orientation of the novel Quadruple Butterfly Coil (QBC) on the distribution of the induced E-Field. Finite element analyses were conducted with the orientation of the QBC in steps of 15° over the vertex of two head models and about the transverse (XY –) plane and coronal (XZ –) plane of the head model. The maximum electric field intensity (E-Max) and stimulated volume of the brain (V-Half) were computed and compared to determine the optimal coil orientation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies · Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications · Neurological disorders and treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University 1 , Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University 2 , Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Funding
Iowa Seed Grant Program, Board of Regents, State of Iowa
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2019 · 55 · 110.1109/tmag.2018.2890069 ↗
2. Ind. Psychiatry J. · 2018 · 27 · 17210.4103/ipj.ipj_88_18 ↗
3. 2019
4. 2020
5. JAMA · 2018 · 320 · 109810.1001/jama.2018.13297 ↗
6. PLoS One · 2017 · 12 · e018695010.1371/journal.pone.0186950 ↗
7. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews · 2018 · 92 · 29110.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.05.015 ↗
8. He · 2020 · 24510.1007/978-3-030-43395-6 ↗
9. Brain Stimulation · 2013 · 6 · 110.1016/j.brs.2012.02.005 ↗
10. AIP Advances · 2017 · 7 · 05670510.1063/1.4973604 ↗
11. Journal of Applied Physics · 1988 · 64 · 586210.1063/1.342181 ↗
12. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 1990 · 26 · 153910.1109/20.104438 ↗
13. P. Rastogi, “Novel coil designs for different neurological disorders in transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, 2019.
14. Journal of Neuroscience Methods · 2020 · 331 · 10852110.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.108521 ↗
15. Phys. Med. Biol. · 2013 · 59 · 20310.1088/0031-9155/59/1/203 ↗
16. Phys. Med. Biol. · 2007 · 52 · 287910.1088/0031-9155/52/10/016 ↗
17. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section · 1992 · 85 · 1710.1016/0168-5597(92)90096-t ↗
18. Medical Physics · 1994 · 21 · 29910.1118/1.597290 ↗
19. Clinical Neurophysiology · 2018 · 129 · 187310.1016/j.clinph.2018.04.749 ↗
20. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2016 · 52 · 110.1109/tmag.2015.2514158 ↗
21. NeuroImage · 2012 · 62 · 222210.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.018 ↗
22. Human Brain Mapping · 2013 · 34 · 92310.1002/hbm.21479 ↗
23. 2012