Using the International 10-20 EEG System for Positioning of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Herwig, Uwe; Satrapi, Peyman; Schönfeldt‐Lecuona, Carlos

doi:10.1023/b:brat.0000006333.93597.9d

Cited by 920 publications

(579 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

533

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, studies have demonstrated that GABA B IPSPs inhibit GABA A IPSPs, consistent with the finding that LICI inhibits SICI (Sanger et al, 2001). Therefore, our finding of a strong correlation between LICI, as indexed though (Herwig et al, 2003). (a) The black waveform represents cortical evoked activity in response to TS alone, while the dashed waveform represents cortical evoked activity following paired-pulse LICI paradigm using an interstimulus interval of 100 ms (ie, LICI 100 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In experiment 1, we examined LICI in the motor cortex concomitantly by both EMG and EEG. The coil was placed at the optimal position for eliciting MEPs from the right abductor pollicis brevis muscle (APB) muscle, which typically corresponded to a region between FC3 and C3 electrodes (Herwig et al, 2003). In experiment 2, LICI was examined in the DLPFC by EEG only.…”

Section: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To evaluate LICI directly from the motor cortex, C3 electrode was used as it has been shown to be the electrode best representing evoked activity in the hand area of motor cortex and being closest to the optimal site of APB activation by TMS (Cui et al, 1999). To capture LICI in the DLPFC, the recording electrode of interest was AF3, which optimally represents the overlap of BA9 and BA46 of the DLPFC (Herwig et al, 2003). In combining TMS with EEG, two additional potential sources of artifact may further contaminate recordings and possibly lead to spurious findings.…”

Section: Electroencephalographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Long-Interval Cortical Inhibition from the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: a TMS–EEG Study

Daskalakis

Farzan

Barr

et al. 2008

Neuropsychopharmacol

215

194

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have demonstrated that cortical inhibition (CI) can be recorded by paired transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and recorded by surface electromyography (EMG). However, recording CI from other cortical regions that are more closely associated with the pathophysiology of some neurological and psychiatric disorders (eg, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in schizophrenia) was previously unattainable. This study, therefore, was designed to investigate whether CI could be measured directly from the motor cortex and DLPFC by combining TMS with electroencephalography (EEG). Long-interval CI (LICI) is a TMS paradigm that was used to index CI in the motor cortex and DLPFC in healthy subjects. In the motor cortex, LICI resulted in significant suppression (32.8 ± 30.5%) of mean cortical evoked activity on EEG, which was strongly correlated with LICI recorded by EMG. In the DLPFC, LICI resulted in significant suppression (30.1±26.9%) of mean cortical evoked activity and also correlated with LICI in the motor cortex. These data suggest that CI can be recorded by combining TMS with EEG and may facilitate future research attempting to ascertain the role of CI in the pathophysiology of several neurological and psychiatric disorders.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Electroencephalographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-Interval Cortical Inhibition from the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: a TMS–EEG Study

Daskalakis

Farzan

Barr

et al. 2008

Neuropsychopharmacol

215

194

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With one exception, the observed deviations were below 5 mm. The maximally observed deviation was 6.0 mm, which still compares favorably to, e.g., coil placement according to the EEG 10-20 system (12) or relative to the motor representation of finger muscles (13). However, it will depend upon the experimental question if this amount of accuracy is sufficient or not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

New coil positioning method for interleaved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/functional MRI (fMRI) and its validation in a motor cortex study

Moisa

Pohmann

Ewald³

et al. 2008

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To develop and test a novel method for coil placement in interleaved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/functional MRI (fMRI) studies. Materials and Methods:Initially, a desired TMS coil position at the subject's head is recorded using a neuronavigation system. Subsequently, a custom-made holding device is used for coil placement inside the MR scanner. The parameters of the device corresponding to the prerecorded position are automatically determined from a fast structural image acquired directly before the experiment. The spatial accuracy of our method was verified on a phantom. Finally, in a study on five subjects, the coil was placed above the cortical representation of a hand muscle in M1 and the blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) responses to short repetitive TMS (rTMS) trains were assessed using echo-planar imaging (EPI) recordings. Results: :The spatial accuracy of our method is in the range of 2.9 Ϯ 1.3 (SD) mm. Motor cortex stimulation resulted in robust BOLD activations in motor-and auditoryrelated brain areas, with the activation in M1 being localized in the hand knob. Conclusion:We present a user-friendly method for TMS coil positioning in the MR scanner that exhibits good spatial accuracy and speeds up the setup of the experiment. The motor-cortex study proves the viability of the approach and validates our interleaved TMS/fMRI setup.

show abstract

“…Included patients were given an identification number linked to a centralised computer-generated randomisation code determining real or sham stimulation condition. system for electroencephalography electrode placement [12]. The real stimulation intensity was determined as 110% of the individual resting motor threshold (MT) [22].…”

Section: Study Design and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sham or real—Post hoc estimation of stimulation condition in a randomized transcranial magnetic stimulation trial

Herwig

Cárdenas-Morales

Connemann

et al. 2010

Neuroscience Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selecting a suitable sham condition within the frame of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment trials is a central issue. On the one hand, the ideal sham condition should not have a real stimulation effect; on the other hand, it should not be recognized as sham by patients, particularly when considering that real stimulation conditions come along with rTMS specific side effects. Within the course of a multi-centre trial assessing the antidepressant effects of rTMS, patients were randomized to sham or real stimulation, in both cases using a standard stimulation coil. In one centre, patients (n = 33) were asked about their impression whether they received the sham or the real treatment, and if they would recommend the treatment to others. 29 patients returned the questionnaires and were included into the analysis. From 15 subjects with real stimulation, 11 suggested to have obtained real, and 4 to have obtained sham. From 14 sham stimulated subjects, 9 suggested to have obtained the real condition and 5 to have been sham stimulated. This difference was not significant (p = 0.60, chi square test). In addition, the major part of patients in both stimulation conditions would recommend rTMS to others. In both conditions, real and sham, the majority of subjects believed to have obtained the real condition. This implies suitability of the sham condition used since subjects appeared not to be able to identify the condition. The results imply the feasibility of a valid sham condition with a "real" coil. stimulated. This difference was not significant (p=0.60, chi square test). In addition, the major part of patients in both stimulation conditions would recommend rTMS to others. In both conditions, real and sham, the majority of subjects believed to have obtained the real condition. This implies suitability of the sham condition used since subjects appeared not to be able to identify the condition. The results imply the feasibility of a valid sham condition with a "real" coil.

show abstract

Using the International 10-20 EEG System for Positioning of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Cited by 920 publications

References 21 publications

Long-Interval Cortical Inhibition from the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: a TMS–EEG Study

Long-Interval Cortical Inhibition from the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: a TMS–EEG Study

New coil positioning method for interleaved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/functional MRI (fMRI) and its validation in a motor cortex study

Sham or real—Post hoc estimation of stimulation condition in a randomized transcranial magnetic stimulation trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About