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.

These results suggest that schizophrenia is associated with deficits in CI and that antipsychotic medications may increase CI.

The concurrent use of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) is growing in popularity as a method for assessing various cortical properties such as excitability, oscillations and connectivity. However, this combination of methods is technically challenging, resulting in artifacts both during recording and following typical EEG analysis methods, which can distort the underlying neural signal. In this article, we review the causes of artifacts in EEG recordings resulting from TMS, as well as artifacts introduced during analysis (e.g. as the result of filtering over high-frequency, large amplitude artifacts). We then discuss methods for removing artifacts, and ways of designing pipelines to minimise analysis-related artifacts. Finally, we introduce the TMS-EEG signal analyser (TESA), an open-source extension for EEGLAB, which includes functions that are specific for TMS-EEG analysis, such as removing and interpolating the TMS pulse artifact, removing and minimising TMS-evoked muscle activity, and analysing TMS-evoked potentials. The aims of TESA are to provide users with easy access to current TMS-EEG analysis methods and to encourage direct comparisons of these methods and pipelines. It is hoped that providing open-source functions will aid in both improving and standardising analysis across the field of TMS-EEG research.

There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data-emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine.

No abstract

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common debilitating condition where only one third of patients achieve remission after the first antidepressant treatment. Inadequate efficacy and adverse effects of current treatment strategies call for more effective and tolerable treatment options. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive approach to manipulate brain activity and alter cortical excitability. There has been more than 15 years of research on the use of repetitive form of TMS (rTMS) for the treatment of patients with depression, which has shown it to be an effective antidepressant treatment. Even though rTMS treatment has shown efficacy in treating depression, there is a high degree of interindividual variability in response. A newer form of rTMS protocol, known as theta-burst stimulation (TBS), has been shown to produce similar if not greater effects on brain activity than standard rTMS. TBS protocols have a major advantage over standard rTMS approaches in their reduced administration duration. Conventional rTMS procedures last between 20 and 45 min, as compared to TBS paradigms that require 1 to 3 min of stimulation. Recently, a small number of studies have suggested that TBS has similar or better efficacy in treating depression compared to rTMS. Optimization, identification of response predictors, and clarification of neurobiological mechanisms of TBS is required if it is to be further developed as a less time intensive, safe, and effective treatment for MDD.

Damage to specific brain circuits can cause specific neuropsychiatric symptoms. Therapeutic stimulation to these same circuits may modulate these symptoms. To determine whether these circuits converge, we studied depression severity after brain lesions (n = 461, five datasets), transcranial magnetic stimulation (n = 151, four datasets) and deep brain stimulation (n = 101, five datasets). Lesions and stimulation sites most associated with depression severity were connected to a similar brain circuit across all 14 datasets (P < 0.001). Circuits derived from lesions, deep brain stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation were similar (P < 0.0005), as were circuits derived from patients with major depression versus other diagnoses (P < 0.001). Connectivity to this circuit predicted out-of-sample antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation and deep brain stimulation sites (P < 0.0001). In an independent analysis, 29 lesions and 95 stimulation sites converged on a distinct circuit for motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (P < 0.05). We conclude that lesions, transcranial magnetic stimulation and DBS converge on common brain circuitry that may represent improved neurostimulation targets for depression and other disorders.

Background: Many studies have attempted to identify the sources of interindividual variability in response to theta-burst stimulation (TBS). However, these studies have been limited by small sample sizes, leading to conflicting results. Objective/Hypothesis: This study brought together over 60 TMS researchers to form the 'Big TMS Data Collaboration', and create the largest known sample of individual participant TBS data to date. The goal was to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of factors driving TBS response variability. Methods: 118 corresponding authors of TMS studies were emailed and asked to provide deidentified individual TMS data. Mixed-effects regression investigated a range of individual and study level variables for their contribution to iTBS and cTBS response variability. Results: 430 healthy participants' TBS data was pooled across 22 studies (mean age ¼ 41.9; range ¼ 17 e82; females ¼ 217). Baseline MEP amplitude, age, target muscle, and time of day significantly predicted iTBS-induced plasticity. Baseline MEP amplitude and timepoint after TBS significantly predicted cTBSinduced plasticity. Conclusions: This is the largest known study of interindividual variability in TBS. Our findings indicate that a significant portion of variability can be attributed to the methods used to measure the modulatory effects of TBS. We provide specific methodological recommendations in order to control and mitigate these sources of variability.