Abstract:Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is currently the only non-invasive neurostimulation modality that enables painless and safe supra-threshold stimulation by employing electromagnetic induction to efficiently penetrate the skull. Accurate, fast, and high resolution modeling of the electric fields (E-fields) may significantly improve individualized targeting and dosing of TMS and therefore enhance the efficiency of existing clinical protocols as well as help establish new application domains.Ob… Show more
“…For the forward-problem solution, we use the boundary element fast multipole method formulated in terms of induced surface charge density ρ ( r ) residing at the conductivity interfaces or BEM-FMM ( Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 , GitHub Repository 2021 ). The method possesses high numerical accuracy, which was shown to exceed that of the comparable finite element method of the first order ( Gomez et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the BEM-FMM forward solver itself was tested previously ( Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 , Gomez et al, 2020 ), the inverse-problem solution was not. To do so, we have rerun…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This table simultaneously presents the results for the normal field optimization, for the CoolB35 coil. The normal fields just inside and outside correlate with each other ( Makarov et al, 2020 ) and are optimized identically. These results appear to be quite different from the total-field results (a better optimization and a higher instability).…”
Section: A1 Tms-ip Solution For the Total Field In The Primary Motor Cortexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Laakso and Hirata, 2012 , Saturnino et al, 2019 , Gomez et al, 2020 ) or, more recently, also the boundary element method (cf. Stenroos and Koponen, 2019 , Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numerical implementation of the TMS-IP solution uses the boundary element fast multipole method (BEM-FMM) ( Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 ) as the forward solver and a simple gradient descent search method with a small step size in a full six-dimensional search space as the inverse solver. This search space includes three independent coil coordinates and three independent coil rotation angles as suggested in the recent TMS protocol ( Balderston et al, 2020 ).…”
The Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) inverse problem (TMS-IP) investigated in this study aims to focus the TMS induced electric field close to a specified target point defined on the gray matter interface in the M 1
HAND
area while otherwise minimizing it. The goal of the study is to numerically evaluate the degree of improvement of the TMS-IP solutions relative to the well-known sulcus-aligned mapping (a projection approach with the 90° local sulcal angle). In total, 1536 individual TMS-IP solutions have been analyzed for multiple target points and multiple subjects using the boundary element fast multipole method (BEM-FMM) as the forward solver.
Our results show that the optimal TMS inverse-problem solutions improve the focality – reduce the size of the field “hot spot ” and its deviation from the target – by approximately 21–33% on average for all considered subjects, all observation points, two distinct coil types, two segmentation types, two intracortical observation surfaces under study, and three tested values of the field threshold. The inverse-problem solutions with the maximized focality simultaneously improve the TMS mapping resolution (differentiation between neighbor targets separated by approximately 10 mm) although this improvement is quite modest.
Coil position/orientation and conductivity uncertainties have been included into consideration as the corresponding de-focalization factors. The present results will change when the levels of uncertainties change. Our results also indicate that the accuracy of the head segmentation critically influences the expected TMS-IP performance.
“…For the forward-problem solution, we use the boundary element fast multipole method formulated in terms of induced surface charge density ρ ( r ) residing at the conductivity interfaces or BEM-FMM ( Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 , GitHub Repository 2021 ). The method possesses high numerical accuracy, which was shown to exceed that of the comparable finite element method of the first order ( Gomez et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the BEM-FMM forward solver itself was tested previously ( Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 , Gomez et al, 2020 ), the inverse-problem solution was not. To do so, we have rerun…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This table simultaneously presents the results for the normal field optimization, for the CoolB35 coil. The normal fields just inside and outside correlate with each other ( Makarov et al, 2020 ) and are optimized identically. These results appear to be quite different from the total-field results (a better optimization and a higher instability).…”
Section: A1 Tms-ip Solution For the Total Field In The Primary Motor Cortexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Laakso and Hirata, 2012 , Saturnino et al, 2019 , Gomez et al, 2020 ) or, more recently, also the boundary element method (cf. Stenroos and Koponen, 2019 , Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numerical implementation of the TMS-IP solution uses the boundary element fast multipole method (BEM-FMM) ( Makarov et al, 2018 , Makarov et al, 2020 ) as the forward solver and a simple gradient descent search method with a small step size in a full six-dimensional search space as the inverse solver. This search space includes three independent coil coordinates and three independent coil rotation angles as suggested in the recent TMS protocol ( Balderston et al, 2020 ).…”
The Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) inverse problem (TMS-IP) investigated in this study aims to focus the TMS induced electric field close to a specified target point defined on the gray matter interface in the M 1
HAND
area while otherwise minimizing it. The goal of the study is to numerically evaluate the degree of improvement of the TMS-IP solutions relative to the well-known sulcus-aligned mapping (a projection approach with the 90° local sulcal angle). In total, 1536 individual TMS-IP solutions have been analyzed for multiple target points and multiple subjects using the boundary element fast multipole method (BEM-FMM) as the forward solver.
Our results show that the optimal TMS inverse-problem solutions improve the focality – reduce the size of the field “hot spot ” and its deviation from the target – by approximately 21–33% on average for all considered subjects, all observation points, two distinct coil types, two segmentation types, two intracortical observation surfaces under study, and three tested values of the field threshold. The inverse-problem solutions with the maximized focality simultaneously improve the TMS mapping resolution (differentiation between neighbor targets separated by approximately 10 mm) although this improvement is quite modest.
Coil position/orientation and conductivity uncertainties have been included into consideration as the corresponding de-focalization factors. The present results will change when the levels of uncertainties change. Our results also indicate that the accuracy of the head segmentation critically influences the expected TMS-IP performance.
Multichannel Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (mTMS) provides the capability of stimulating multiple cortical areas simultaneously or in rapid succession by electronic shifting of the E-field hotspots. However, in order to target the desired brain region with intended intensity, the intracranial E-field distribution for all coil elements needs to be determined and subsequently combined to electronically synthesize a ‘hot spot’. Here, we assessed the performance of a computational TMS navigation system that was used to track the position of a 2×3-axis TMS coil array with respect to subject’s head and was integrated with a real-time high-resolution E-field calculation engine to predict the activated cortical regions as the array is moved around the subject’s head. For fast evaluation of the E-fields with high-resolution head models, we employed our previously proposed Magnetic Stimulation Profile (MSP) approach. Our preliminary tests demonstrated the capability of this system to precisely calculate and render E-fields with a frame rate of 6 Hz (6 frames/second). Furthermore, we utilized two z-elements from the 3-axis coils to form a figure of eight coil type and utilized it for suprathreshold stimulation of the hand first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle on a healthy human. The recorded motor evoked potentials (MEPs) showed clear activation of the FDI muscle comparable to the activation elicited by a commercial TMS coil. The estimated cortical E-field distributions showed a good agreement between the commercial TMS coil and the two z-elements of the 2×3-axis array.
Computational electromagnetic modeling is a powerful technique to evaluate the effects of electrical stimulation of the human brain. The results of these simulations can vary based on the segmentation of the head and brain generated from the patient images. Using an existing boundary element fast multipole method (BEM-FMM) electromagnetic solver, this work compares the simulated electric field differences resulted by the three segmentation methods. A transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil targeting both the primary motor cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was simulated. Average field differences were small among the three methods (2% for motor cortex, 3% for DLPFC) and the average field differences in the regions directly surrounding the target stimulation point were 5% for the motor cortex and 2% for DLPFC. More studies evaluating different coils and other segmentation options may further improve the computational modeling for robust TMS treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.