This study is designed to test the hypothesis that neuronavigational system-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation has higher accuracy for targeting the intended target as demonstrated by eliciting a greater degree of virtual aphasia in healthy subjects, measured by delay in reaction time to picture naming.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is widely used for several neurological conditions, as it has gained acknowledgement for its potential therapeutic effects. Brain excitability is non-invasively modulated by rTMS, and rTMS to the language areas has proved its potential effects on treatment of aphasia. In our protocol, we aim to artificially induce virtual aphasia in healthy subjects by inhibiting Brodmann area 44 and 45 using neuronavigational TMS (nTMS), and F3 of the International 10-20 EEG system for conventional TMS (cTMS). To measure the degree of aphasia, changes in reaction time to a picture naming task pre- and post-stimulation are measured and compare the delay in reaction time between nTMS and cTMS. Accuracy of the two TMS stimulation methods is compared by averaging the Talairach coordinates of the target and the actual stimulation. Consistency of stimulation is demonstrated by the error range from the target. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate use of nTMS and to describe the benefits and limitations of the nTMS compared to those of cTMS.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) non-invasively activates neuronal circuits in the central and peripheral nervous systems.1 rTMS modulates brain excitability2 and has potential therapeutic effects in several psychiatric and neurological conditions, such as motor weakness, aphasia, neglect, and pain.3 The target sites for rTMS other than the motor cortex are conventionally identified using the International 10-20 EEG system or by measuring distances from certain external landmarks.
However, inter-individual differences in size, anatomy, and morphology of the brain cortex are not taken into account, making optimal target localization challenging.3 Another critical issue for rTMS applications is the discordance between placement of the magnetic coil and the cortical region of intended stimulation.
Optically tracked navigational neurosurgery has expanded it applications to encompass the cognitive neuroscience field including rTMS for guidance of the magnetic coil. The neuronavigational system assists in identifying the optimal target structures for rTMS.4,5 Such divergence in coil positioning on the target area frequently occurs with the conventional method adopting the 10-20 EEG system, and this is expected to be overcome by neuronavigation.
This study protocol demonstrates a method to induce virtual aphasia in healthy subjects by neuronavigational rTMS targeting Broca's area, using individual anatomical mapping. The degree of virtual aphasia in terms of change in reaction time to picture naming is measured and compared with those from the conventional stimulation method. The neuronavigation-guided method has higher accuracy for delivering magnetic pulses to the brain, and is thus expected to demonstrate greater clinical change than that of the conventional method. The goal of this study was to introduce a more precise and effective method of stimulation for patients with aphasia in clinical setting.
Ethics statement: This study was approved by the institutional review board of a blinded hospital.
1. Preparing Materials (Table 1)
2. Checking the Study Design
3. Preparation of the TMS Protocol
4. Picture Naming Task
5. TMS Mapping Protocol
6. Topograhic Data Acquisition
Kim et al. demonstrated a more superior effect of TMS with neuronavigational system guidance compared to the non-navigated conventional method by less dispersion of stimulus and more focal stimulation to the right M1 area,8 as shown in Figure 9. Further evidence to support incorporating the neuronavigational system with TMS is demonstrated by a randomized crossover experiment to induce virtual aphasia in healthy subjects by targeting Brodmann area 44 and 45 for nTMS and F3 of the International 10-20 EEG system for cTMS.9
Kim et al. compared cTMS and nTMS in 16 healthy subjects by following measures; reaction time for a picture naming task measured before and after each session of stimulation, the mean Talairach space coordinates of localization of stimulation, and the error range relative to the target (Figures 10–12). Figure 10 shows only the nTMS induced a significant delay in reaction time compared with baseline, and greater consistency of localization of stimulation with the target in demonstrated in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows a narrower error range relative to the target for the nTMS compared with that of cTMS.
These significant differences in the nTMS group were induced by the high precision of the TMS pulse delivery to the intended target by narrowing the distance between the target and the coil when guided by neuronavigation, thereby producing more significant results compared to those of the conventional method. Exact placement of the coil on the target is absolutely critical for producing clinically effective results. Above results support use of neuronavigational guidance when applying rTMS.
Figure 1: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) System and Electromyography (EMG) Machine to Acquire Resting Motor Threshold (RMT)
Right M1 area is stimulated with the active electrode on the left first dorsal interosseous muscle to determine RMT Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Equipment Setting for the Navigation System. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) chair, mobile camera, and computer screen with TMS equipment are included. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Preparing Materials. Picture of coil tracker, pointer, and subjective tracker. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Calibration Block with Coil Tracker. This allows the program to detect the relative position of the transcranial Magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Reconstructed Brain Curvilinear by the Neuronavigation Program. Once the brain magnetic resonance MR images are transferred to the neuronavigation program, the brain curvilinear and skin are reconstructed using anterior commissure (AC) and posterior commissure (PC). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 6: Anatomical Landmarks for Navigation Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). Anatomical landmarks, nasion, nasal tip, and both tragus are marked using a pointer. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 7: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Mapping. Inferior frontal gyrus for the navigation-guided TMS (left) and F3 of the International 10-20 system for conventional TMS (right) are set to stimulate the target. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 8: Neuronavigation Display during Navigation-guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nTMS). Screen displays subject's brain surface, intended target, coil, and error range. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 9: Less Dispersion of the Stimulus and More Focal Stimulation with the Navigation. Comparison of the non-navigated conventional method (left) with navigational guidance (right) demonstrates less dispersion of the stimulus and more focal stimulation of the right M1 area using navigation-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS). Modified from reference9. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 10: Comparison of the Ability to Induce Virtual Aphasia between Navigation-guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nTMS) and Conventional TMS (cTMS) in 16 Healthy Subjects. Mean picture naming time (in msec) is significantly increased (p <0.001) with nTMS whereas no change is made with cTMS (p = 0.179) Bars represent mean reaction time with corresponding standard errors. Modified from reference9. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 11: Drawing of Mapping Area and Stimulation (n = 16). The areas stimulated for the conventional method (green) are more widely distributed with the coordinates scattered more upward relative to the target (red) compared to those of the navigation method (purple). Modified from reference9. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 12: Mean Error Ranges for Navigation-guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nTMS) and Conventional TMS (cTMS) (n = 16). The distance from the actual stimulation site relative to the target is closer with nTMS than cTMS. The error range is narrower for nTMS than that for cTMS. Bars represent means and standard errors. Modified from reference9. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 1: Three-dimensional T1-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Parameters for this Study
TMS is widely used both in clinical practice and basic research.10 Valuable therapeutic effects are offered by the physiologic influence of rTMS, including an inhibitory neuromodulatory effect on cortical excitability with low frequency rTMS for treatment of aphasia.11 Transient disruption of neural processing or virtual lesioning induced by rTMS can change behavioral performance.12 However, the desired effect of rTMS may be diluted or even not occur with the coil misplaced on the target. Mis-targeting between the originally intended target and the actual stimulated cortical area can occurs due to minor differences in coil placement and orientation; hence, significantly affecting the magnetic field created in the brain.7 Therefore, such sources of variability should be minimized when applying TMS, and delivering magnetic pulses accurately to the desired cortical area is mandatory to deliver the maximal clinical rTMS effect.
To solve this critical issue of problematic coil placement on the target cortical region, adopting optically tracked rTMS using a neuronavigational system optimizes coil stability.13 The neuronavigation program utilizes individual MR images, thereby providing online visual feedback of the coil positioning with respect to the target area, allowing real-time adjustments in coil position by correcting the misdirected coil-head relationship.13 A focused magnetic field stimulation within a range of several millimeters is achieved due to the high precision of neuronavigation, enabling more strong rTMS pulses to reach specific anatomical structures.
This protocol tests the effects of neuronavigation-guided TMS on language function in terms of reaction time to picture naming by inducing virtual aphasia in healthy subjects and comparing the results with those obtained from the conventional TMS method using the EEG landmark, and relating the results with the actual stimulated area of the brain by each method.
Precise target determination is critical because accurate stimulation of the target is guaranteed once use of the navigational system is decided. In this protocol, targets for stimulation of IFG are registered based on anatomical mapping of individual brain cortical surfaces, and this can differ from that of the F3 of the 10-20 EEG system, corresponding to Brodmann area 44 and 45,6 where F3 is more posterior and superior relative to the IFG, and stimulating the IFG produced significant virtual aphasia, whereas blind stimulation of F3 did not.9 The consistency of stimulation on the specific brain region is maximized with the navigation system; thus, enhancing the physiological effects of rTMS. These results are supported by the dramatic shifts in TMS-induced performance due to small changes in the stimulation location.14
However, the findings and interpretations of the nTMS protocol used by Kim et al. (2014) have limitations. It demonstrated a greater inhibitory effect in healthy subjects by inducing significant virtual lesioning, but whether it has the same facilitative effect in patients with aphasia has not been tested. This can be confirmed by performing this protocol in actual patients with aphasia, such as those with post-stroke aphasia. Speech function is artificially suppressed in normal subjects for our protocol, whereas it must be facilitated with different frequencies for patients with aphasia in whom speech function is already suppressed. Also, recognizing the IFG on the brain surface on anatomical bases can be quite challenging as location and contours may differ among subjects.
Optically tracked neuronavigational system elicits more profound virtual lesions than those of the conventional non-neuronavigated method. This protocol demonstrates that using nTMS, compared to cTMS, can produce more robust neuromodulation of Broca's area which is critical for treatment of post-stroke aphasic patients.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This study was supported by a grant (A101901) from the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea. We thank Dr Ji-Young Lee for providing technical assistance throughout the procedure.
Medtronic MagPro X100 | MagVenture | 9016E0711 | |
MCF-B65 Butterfly coil | MagVenture | 9016E042 | |
Brainsight TMS Navigation | Rogue Research | KITBSF1003 |