| Title |
Transcranial magnetic stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, November 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s002210100860 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Corthout, A. Barker, A. Cowey |
| Abstract |
To investigate the mechanism of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we compared the directional effects of two stimulators (Magstim 200 and Magstim Super Rapid). First, stimulating visual cortex and facial nerve with occipital mid-line TMS, we found that, for a particular coil orientation, these two stimulators affected a particular neural structure in opposite hemispheres and that, to affect a particular neural structure in a particular hemisphere, these two stimulators required opposite coil orientations. Second, stimulating a membrane-simulating circuit, we found that, for a particular coil orientation, these two stimulators resulted in a peak induced current of the same polarity but in a peak induced charge accumulation of opposite polarity. We suggest that the critical parameter in TMS is the amplitude of the induced charge accumulation rather than the amplitude of the induced current. Accordingly, TMS would be elicited just before the end of the first (Magstim 200) and second (Magstim Super Rapid) phase of the induced current rather than just after the start of the first phase of the induced current. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 24% |
| Researcher | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 17% |
| Engineering | 19 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 13% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2016.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#969
of 3,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,661
of 45,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 45,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.