bioRxivNeurosciencePreprint
Evaluation of scalp-based targeting methods of DLPFC for TMS therapy: EEG cap F3, Beam F3, CPC F3, and adjusted Beam F3
Yihan Jiang, Yuanyuan CheniD, Lijiang Wei, Farui LiuiD, Zeqing ZhengiD, Zong ZhangiD, Zheng LiiD, Yingying TangiD, Jijun WangiD, Qing XieiD, Chuanxin M. NiuiD, Chaozhe ZhuiD
Abstract
BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) offers a promising approach for treating depression. Scalp-based targeting methods, including EEG Cap, Beam F3, CPC F3, and adjusted Beam F3, have evolved to improve clinical application. ObejectivesTo evaluate and compare the accuracy, reliability, speed, and training efficacy of these four methods. MethodsThree trained technicians conducted repeated DLPFC targeting measurements on 10 3D-printed head models. Accuracy was assessed by calculating targeting error and electric field strength at the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex anti-correlated peak. Reliability was evaluated through inter- and intra-rater variability, and training efficacy was examined by comparing targeting errors between trained technicians and novices. ResultsCPC F3, Beam F3, and adjusted Beam F3 demonstrated comparable accuracy in terms of electric field strength, but CPC F3 had the lowest targeting error (4.2 mm). CPC F3 also exhibited the highest reliability (inter-rater variability at 3.3 mm, intra-rater variability at 2.3 mm). The EEG cap was the fastest method (80 seconds), while CPC F3 was faster than Beam F3 but slower than EEG Cap. No significant differences in targeting error between trained technicians and novices were noted with CPC F3 and adjusted Beam F3. ConclusionThe comparative analysis of four scalp-based targeting methods provides insights that can enhance clinical decision-making and the practical application. While accuracy among CPC F3, Beam F3, and adjusted Beam F3 was comparable, CPC F3 emerges as highly practical due to its significantly better reliability, training efficacy, moderate speed, and straightforward implementation.
- Citations
- 0
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Reliability of the TMS-evoked potential in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Juha Gogulski, Christopher C. Cline, … Corey J. Keller·Cerebral CortexPeer-reviewed·Mar 24, 2024
- Mapping cortical excitability in the human dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
Juha Gogulski, Christopher C. Cline, … Corey J. Keller·bioRxiv·Jan 20, 2023
- Test-retest reliability of TMS-evoked potentials over fMRI-based definitions of non-motor cortical targets
Ceyda Sayalı, Juha Gogulski, … Frederick Streeter Barrett·bioRxiv·Dec 20, 2024
- Moving towards precision TMS? Evaluating individual differences and reproducibility of personalized stimulation targets in UK Biobank
Ying Zhao, Yi-Jie Zhao, … Valerie Voon·bioRxiv·Apr 16, 2024
- Development of a novel connectivity-based electric-field modelling approach for individualized targeting of transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment.
Nicholas L. Balderston, Joanne C. Beer, … Yvette I. Sheline·NeuropsychopharmacologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 28, 2021
- Scaling Personalized TMS: A Scalp-Based MRI-guided Alternative to Neuronavigation
Farui Liu, Zong Zhang, … Chaozhe Zhu·bioRxiv·Sep 5, 2025