ABSTRACT
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a popular modulatory technique for the noninvasive diagnosis and therapy of neurological and psychiatric diseases. Unfortunately, current modulation strategies are only modestly effective. The literature provides strong evidence that the modulatory effects of TMS vary depending on device components and stimulation protocols. These differential effects are important when designing precise modulatory strategies for clinical or research applications. Developments in TMS have been accompanied by advances in combining TMS with neuroimaging techniques, including electroencephalography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Such studies appear particularly promising as they may not only allow us to probe affected brain areas during TMS but also seem to predict underlying research directions that may enable us to precisely target and remodel impaired cortices or circuits. However, few precise modulation strategies are available, and the long-term safety and efficacy of these strategies need to be confirmed. Here, we review the literature on possible technologies for precise modulation to highlight progress along with limitations with the goal of suggesting future directions for this field.
ABSTRACT
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a popular modulatory technique for the noninvasive diagnosis and therapy of neurological and psychiatric diseases. Unfortunately, current modulation strategies are only modestly effective. The literature provides strong evidence that the modulatory effects of TMS vary depending on device components and stimulation protocols. These differential effects are important when designing precise modulatory strategies for clinical or research applications. Developments in TMS have been accompanied by advances in combining TMS with neuroimaging techniques, including electroencephalography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Such studies appear particularly promising as they may not only allow us to probe affected brain areas during TMS but also seem to predict underlying research directions that may enable us to precisely target and remodel impaired cortices or circuits. However, few precise modulation strategies are available, and the long-term safety and efficacy of these strategies need to be confirmed. Here, we review the literature on possible technologies for precise modulation to highlight progress along with limitations with the goal of suggesting future directions for this field.
Subject(s)
Brain/diagnostic imaging , Electroencephalography , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Neuroimaging , Transcranial Magnetic StimulationABSTRACT
Modified electroconvulsive therapy (MECT) and magnetic seizure therapy (MST) are effective treatments for severe major depression. MECT has better efficacy in the treatment than MST, but it has cognitive and memorial side effects while MST does not. To study the causes of these different outcomes, this study contrasted the electric filed strength and spatial distribution induced by MECT and MST in a realistic human head model. Electric field strength induced by MECT and MST are simulated by the finite element method, which was based on a realistic human head model obtained by magnetic resonance imaging. The electrode configuration of MECT is standard bifrontal stimulation configuration, and the coil configuration of MST is circular. Maps of the ratio of the electric field strength to neural activation threshold are obtained to evaluate the stimulation strength and stimulation focality in brain regions. The stimulation strength induced by MECT is stronger than MST, and the activated region is wider. MECT stimulation strength in gray matter is 17.817 times of that by MST, and MECT stimulation strength in white matter is 23.312 times of that by MST. As well, MECT stimulation strength in hippocampi is 35.162 times of that by MST. More than 99.999% of the brain volume is stimulated at suprathreshold by MECT. However, MST activated only 0.700% of the brain volume. The stimulation strength induced by MECT is stronger than MST, and the activated region is wider may be the reason that MECT has better effectiveness. Nevertheless, the stronger stimulation strength in hippocampi induced by MECT may be the reason that MECT is more likely to give rise to side effects. Based on the results of this study, it is expected that a more accurate clinical quantitative treatment scheme should be studied in the future.