Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 178 references

Robot-assisted Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Robo-TMS): A Review

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review organizes robot-assisted TMS into four subsystems and identifies accessibility, not engineering capability, as the main barrier to clinical adoption.

desk verdict A solid first-engineering-synthesis of Robo-TMS that is worth reading and citing, provided the reader treats its performance comparison table as illustrative rather than benchmarked. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04345 v1 pith:XEH7T7UJ submitted 2025-07-06 cs.RO

Wenzhi Bai , Andrew Weightman , Rory J O Connor , Zhengtao Ding , Mingming Zhang , Sheng Quan Xie , Zhenhong Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords transcranialmagneticstimulationrobot-assistedTMSneuronavigationcalibrationandregistrationopticaltrackingelectricfieldmodellingmulti-locusclinicaladoption
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims to be the first comprehensive engineering survey of robot-assisted transcranial magnetic stimulation (Robo-TMS), a technology that mounts a TMS coil on a robot arm to keep stimulation precisely on target during long sessions. It maps the field into four subsystems: hardware and integration, calibration and registration, neuronavigation systems, and control systems. The central finding is that broader clinical adoption is limited by accessibility, driven by unverified clinical applicability, high operational complexity, and substantial implementation costs. The review then points to emerging engineering tools, such as marker-less tracking, non-rigid registration, learning-based electric field modelling, individualised MRI generation, and robotic multi-locus TMS, as the routes to overcome these barriers.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the coordinate-transformation chain expressed as homogeneous matrices in $SE(3)$, which relates the head, MRI, camera, robot base, end-effector, and coil frames. The clinical targeting requirement $^\text{head}T^*_{\text{coil}} = {}^{\text{head}}T_{\text{MRI}} \cdot {}^{\text{MRI}}T^*_{\text{coil}}$ is realized in real time through the tracked pose chain involving the optical camera, and the paper uses this framework to locate error sources in calibration and registration and to compare typical system performance, around $2\,\text{mm}/1.5^\circ$ accuracy and roughly $2.5\,\text{N}$ contact force.

What would settle it

A public benchmark that measures targeting accuracy, contact force, and setup time of several Robo-TMS systems on the same phantom would falsify the review's representative performance profile if results vary widely across systems; similarly, a randomized trial showing Robo-TMS clinical superiority over manual navigated TMS would undercut the 'unverified clinical applicability' claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a four-part engineering taxonomy for Robo-TMS and argues that the field's central technical challenge is not raw accuracy but the smooth, low-cost integration of calibration, registration, neuronavigation, and control into a clinically usable workflow. Its load-bearing diagnostic claim is that accessibility is the foremost barrier to clinical adoption, more decisive than any single accuracy metric. The review further asserts that the clinical value of Robo-TMS over conventional TMS remains unverified, so the engineering community lacks evidence-based guidelines for when and how the technology should be used.

Load-bearing premise

The review's barrier diagnosis assumes that the handful of commercial systems and research prototypes it cites are representative of Robo-TMS as a whole, since no standardized benchmark or systematic head-to-head comparison backs the typical accuracy and contact-force figures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the four-subsystem taxonomy is correct, engineering effort should concentrate on the least automated steps, namely calibration and registration, which dominate operational complexity.
  • If accessibility is the true adoption barrier, reducing cost and workflow burden matters more than further improving targeting accuracy.
  • If marker-less tracking and automated registration mature, setup time and operator dependence will drop, easing clinical translation.
  • If learning-based E-field modelling delivers real-time field estimates, closed-loop robotic targeting with online dose visualization becomes feasible.
  • If Robo-mTMS integration succeeds, stimulation can be re-targeted electronically within small cortical regions, reducing the need for slow robot-arm motion during multi-target sessions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The typical accuracy and contact-force figures in the review's comparison table come from a small set of specific commercial systems and experimental prototypes without a standardized benchmark, so the comparative performance profile could shift under a common evaluation protocol.
  • The review implies, but does not test, that Robo-TMS offers no proven clinical benefit over conventional navigated TMS; a randomized head-to-head trial would be the decisive test of that assumption.
  • The expectation that broader adoption will lower costs through economies of scale is speculative until clinical demand is demonstrated.
  • Combined advances in automated registration and learning-based E-field solvers could eventually make fully unattended TMS sessions feasible, a step the paper only hints at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review paper surveys robot-assisted transcranial magnetic stimulation (Robo-TMS) from an engineering perspective. It is organised around four subsystems: hardware and integration, calibration and registration, neuronavigation systems (optical tracking and E-field modelling), and control systems (motion compensation, contact force control, and safety). The authors argue that clinical adoption of Robo-TMS is limited by unverified clinical applicability, high operational complexity, and substantial implementation costs, and they propose future directions including marker-less tracking, non-rigid registration, learning-based E-field modelling, individualised MRI generation, and robot-assisted multi-locus TMS. The paper explicitly claims to be the first comprehensive engineering-focused review of Robo-TMS.

Significance. The manuscript fills a genuine gap: prior reviews have focused on TMS fundamentals, clinical applications, or specific components, while an integrated engineering perspective on Robo-TMS has been lacking. The paper's value lies in its systematic organisation, the explicit mathematical formulations of calibration and control (Eqs. 1-5), and a concrete research agenda. It is also honest in acknowledging that clinical benefit remains unverified. However, the quantitative performance comparison in Table I, which underpins the narrative that Robo-TMS improves accuracy and contact force over conventional TMS, is not robustly sourced; if the reported values are only illustrative, the strength of the discussion claims must be tempered. With a revised and properly contextualised comparison, the review would be a useful reference for both engineers and clinicians.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table I and Section VI-A1] The Accuracy and Contact Force rows of Table I cite the same three references ([31]-[33]) for conventional TMS and for both Robo-TMS classes, and the table footnote concedes that the values come from specific commercial systems and experimental prototypes. Because [31]-[33] are Robo-TMS system papers rather than comparative studies, and because no measurement protocol (phantom versus human, error definition, tracker noise, trial count) is given, the table cannot support the 'typical' performance characterization. This matters for the paper's central claim: Section VI-A1 uses these numbers to argue that Robo-TMS delivers reproducible and accurate treatment, and the 'typical' framing is a load-bearing premise for that argument. Please either present the values as reported ranges for individual systems with explicit protocol details, or replace the table with a source-by-source comparison that separates conventional, industrial, and specialised systems.
  2. [Section VI-B] The paper identifies accessibility as 'the foremost barrier' to clinical adoption, but the review does not report a method (e.g., thematic analysis, stakeholder survey, frequency of barrier mentions in the literature, or cost analysis) that would justify a ranking among the three named barriers. As written, the ranking is an authorial judgment rather than a demonstrated synthesis outcome. Please either soften the claim to 'a primary barrier' or briefly document the basis for the ordering.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I (footnote)] The corresponding author email contains a typo: 'zhenhong.li@anchester.ac.uk' should presumably be 'zhenhong.li@manchester.ac.uk'.
  2. [Reference [139]] The citation for SlicerTMS is incomplete; it lacks a venue, volume/pages, or DOI, which makes it difficult for readers to locate the work.
  3. [Section VI-A3] The sentence 'The accuracy of Robo-TMS significantly reduces the risk of side effects' is stronger than the cited evidence supports; references [6] and [16] address the safety of navigated TMS in brain tumour mapping, not a comparative Robo-TMS-versus-conventional side-effect rate. Please soften to reflect that the evidence is indirect.
  4. [Section I] The claim of being 'the first review to comprehensively survey the status and challenges of Robo-TMS from an engineering perspective' would be more verifiable if the authors briefly described their literature search strategy (databases, years, inclusion criteria) used to identify prior reviews.
  5. [Section II-B4] The depth-focality metrics d_{1/2} and S_{1/2} are defined in the caption of Fig. 3; consider defining them in the main text before the figure reference, since they are used again later.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a qualitative engineering review whose conclusions synthesize independently published results; Table I's thin benchmarking is an evidence-quality limitation, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

This is a review paper with no fitted model, no target quantity predicted from inputs, and no derivation chain that reduces to its own assumptions. The equations it presents, Eqs. (1)-(5), are standard SE(3) hand-eye and pose-composition identities used to describe calibration and control objectives; they are not used to generate a numerical result that is then presented as a prediction. The comparative accuracy and force values in Table I are quoted from external sources [31]-[35] with a footnote restricting them to specific commercial systems and experimental prototypes; the fact that the same three references support all three system columns is a legitimate weakness of evidence quality because no standardized benchmark or measurement protocol is given, but it is not a case of fitting a parameter and then 'predicting' a closely related quantity, since the review makes no statistical inference from those values. The 'first review' statement is a priority claim rather than a circular inference, and the authors explicitly state that clinical benefit remains unverified, so they do not assume the conclusion they are arguing for. Any self-citations in the reference list, such as the group's own calibration and tracking papers, are used as ordinary primary sources for specific engineering developments, and no load-bearing conclusion is justified solely by such a citation. The central conclusions about limited clinical adoption due to unverified clinical applicability, high operational complexity, and substantial implementation costs are qualitative syntheses of independently published clinical and engineering studies. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, fitted constants, or invented entities appear because the paper is a literature review. Its dependencies are selection and representativeness assumptions: the four-part taxonomy, the typicality of the compared systems, and the sufficiency of qualitative evidence for the adoption-barrier conclusion.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Robo-TMS field can be comprehensively organized into four aspects: hardware and integration, calibration and registration, neuronavigation, and control systems.
    This taxonomy determines which literature is included in the review; an omitted subsystem, such as regulatory safety certification or human factors, would leave the synthesis incomplete. Stated in Section I.
  • domain assumption The systems cited as typical in Table I are representative of Robo-TMS performance.
    Accuracy and contact force values are taken from a small set of commercial and prototype sources ([31]-[35]) without a common benchmark or meta-analysis, so the general performance profile depends on representativeness.
  • domain assumption The qualitative adoption barriers can be inferred from the reviewed literature without a formal evidence synthesis.
    The conclusion that clinical applicability, complexity, and cost limit adoption is presented as a finding but is not derived from a systematic review protocol, cost-effectiveness data, or clinical outcome comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robot-assisted Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Robo-TMS): A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEH7T7UJ

@misc{pith2026250704345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robot-assisted Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Robo-TMS): A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEH7T7UJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04345}
}
read the original abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive and safe brain stimulation procedure with growing applications in clinical treatments and neuroscience research. However, achieving precise stimulation over prolonged sessions poses significant challenges. By integrating advanced robotics with conventional TMS, robot-assisted TMS (Robo-TMS) has emerged as a promising solution to enhance efficacy and streamline procedures. Despite growing interest, a comprehensive review from an engineering perspective has been notably absent. This paper systematically examines four critical aspects of Robo-TMS: hardware and integration, calibration and registration, neuronavigation systems, and control systems. We review state-of-the-art technologies in each area, identify current limitations, and propose future research directions. Our findings suggest that broader clinical adoption of Robo-TMS is currently limited by unverified clinical applicability, high operational complexity, and substantial implementation costs. Emerging technologies, including marker-less tracking, non-rigid registration, learning-based electric field (E-field) modelling, individualised magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) generation, robot-assisted multi-locus TMS (Robo-mTMS), and automated calibration and registration, present promising pathways to address these challenges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical application scenario of Robo-TMS. The subject lies in a chair with a head marker attached. An optical tracking camera monitors head and coil markers to guide the robot arm in compensating for head movements, maintaining a consistent coil-to-head transformation for accurate stimulation. The TMS stimulator generates current pulses into the TMS coil, and the resulting induced E-field within the subject’s head… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The principle of TMS. TMS operates on the principle of electromagnetic induction (Faraday’s law of induction). A rapidly chang￾ing current passing through the coil generates a brief magnetic field pulse, which induces electric currents in the targeted brain region. The distribution of the induced E-field is influenced by the coil design, its placement on the scalp, and the intensity of the applied current. 2) Coils … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The depth-focality trade-off in TMS coil design. The depth is quantified by d1/2, and the focality is quantified by the spread S1/2. For any type of coils, deeper stimulation is accompanied by increased spread, indicating reduced focality [59], [61]. This trade-off can be quantified by metrics such as Emax (the maximum E-field strength), d1/2 (the depth at which the E-field drops to half of Emax), and S1/2 = V1/2 d1… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The neuronavigation system for Robo-TMS. The optical tracking camera continuously monitors the real-time poses of markers on the coil and the subject’s forehead, enabling accurate tracking of both the coil and head poses. Through calibration, these poses are transforme…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The outlook of Robo-TMS. Advancements in Robo-TMS have been driven by collaborative efforts among clinicians, engineers, and researchers. However, the challenges highlighted in the yellow ring remain unresolved, hindering progress towards the future directions outlined…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

178 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    A custom robot for Transcranial Magnetic Stim- ulation: First assessment on healthy subjects,

    R. Ginhoux et al. , “A custom robot for Transcranial Magnetic Stim- ulation: First assessment on healthy subjects,” in 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) . Osaka: IEEE, 2013, pp. 5352–5355

    2013

  2. [33]

    Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Robotic As- sistant: Towards a fully automated stimulation session,

    I. Xygonakis et al. , “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Robotic As- sistant: Towards a fully automated stimulation session,” in 2024 10th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) . Heidelberg, Germany: IEEE, 2024, pp. 1401–1408

    2024

  3. [34]

    Force-controlled Transcranial Mag- netic Stimulation (TMS) robotic system,

    W. Zakaria and W. Nurshazwani, “Force-controlled Transcranial Mag- netic Stimulation (TMS) robotic system,” Thesis, Newcastle University, 2012

    2012

  4. [32]

    Development and Validation of a Novel Calibration Methodology and Control Approach for Robot-Aided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS),

    A. Noccaro et al., “Development and Validation of a Novel Calibration Methodology and Control Approach for Robot-Aided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS),” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical En- gineering, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1589–1600, 2021

    2021

  5. [35]

    Robotic image-guided transcranial magnetic stim- ulation,

    C. Leboss ´e et al. , “Robotic image-guided transcranial magnetic stim- ulation,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2006

    2006

  6. [1]

    Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex,

    A. T. Barker et al., “Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex,” The Lancet, vol. 325, no. 8437, pp. 1106–1107, 1985

    1985

  7. [2]

    A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report of an IFCN committee,

    S. Groppa et al., “A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report of an IFCN committee,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 858–882, 2012

    2012

  8. [3]

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: What is stimulated? – A consensus and critical position paper,

    H. R. Siebner et al. , “Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: What is stimulated? – A consensus and critical position paper,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 140, pp. 59–97, 2022

    2022

Show all 178 references
  1. [4]

    D. J. Edwards et al. , A Practical Manual for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024

    2024

  2. [5]

    Depression Is the Leading Cause of Disability Around the World,

    M. Friedrich, “Depression Is the Leading Cause of Disability Around the World,” JAMA, vol. 317, no. 15, p. 1517, 2017

    2017

  3. [6]

    Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines,

    S. Rossi et al., “Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 269–306, 2021

    2021

  4. [7]

    Diagnostic contribution and therapeutic per- spectives of transcranial magnetic stimulation in dementia,

    V . Di Lazzaro et al. , “Diagnostic contribution and therapeutic per- spectives of transcranial magnetic stimulation in dementia,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 132, no. 10, pp. 2568–2607, 2021. 13

    2021

  5. [8]

    Clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurological disorders. Updated report of an IFCN committee,

    S. Vucic et al. , “Clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurological disorders. Updated report of an IFCN committee,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 150, pp. 131–175, 2023

    2023

  6. [9]

    Preoperative Applications of Navigated Transcra- nial Magnetic Stimulation

    A. F. Haddad et al., “Preoperative Applications of Navigated Transcra- nial Magnetic Stimulation.” Frontiers in neurology, vol. 11, p. 628903, 2020

    2020

  7. [10]

    Reliability of robotic transcranial magnetic stimula- tion motor mapping,

    A. Giuffre et al., “Reliability of robotic transcranial magnetic stimula- tion motor mapping,” Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 74–85, 2021

    2021

  8. [11]

    Active versus resting neuro-navigated robotic tran- scranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping,

    C. K. Kahl et al., “Active versus resting neuro-navigated robotic tran- scranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping,” Physiological Reports, vol. 10, no. 12, p. e15346, 2022

    2022

  9. [12]

    Reliability of active robotic neuro-navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation motor maps,

    C. K. Kahl et al. , “Reliability of active robotic neuro-navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation motor maps,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 241, no. 2, pp. 355–364, 2023

    2023

  10. [13]

    Navigated transcranial magnetic stimu- lation,

    J. Ruohonen and J. Karhu, “Navigated transcranial magnetic stimu- lation,” Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 7–17, 2010

    2010

  11. [14]

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation: A historical evaluation and future prognosis of therapeutically relevant ethical concerns,

    J. C. Horvath et al. , “Transcranial magnetic stimulation: A historical evaluation and future prognosis of therapeutically relevant ethical concerns,” Journal of Medical Ethics , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 137–143, 2011

    2011

  12. [15]

    A visual and narrative timeline of US FDA milestones for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) devices,

    S. L. Cohen et al. , “A visual and narrative timeline of US FDA milestones for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) devices,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 73–75, 2022

    2022

  13. [16]

    Safety and tolerability of navigated TMS for preoperative mapping in neurosurgical patients,

    P. E. Tarapore et al. , “Safety and tolerability of navigated TMS for preoperative mapping in neurosurgical patients,” Clinical Neurophysi- ology, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 1895–1900, 2016

    1900

  14. [17]

    Robot-assisted image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation for somatotopic mapping of the motor cortex: A clinical pilot study,

    S. R. Kantelhardt et al. , “Robot-assisted image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation for somatotopic mapping of the motor cortex: A clinical pilot study,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 333– 343, 2010

    2010

  15. [18]

    Noninvasive human brain stimulation,

    T. Wagner et al. , “Noninvasive human brain stimulation,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering , vol. 9, pp. 527–565, 2007

    2007

  16. [19]

    Image-Guided Interventions: Technology Review and Clinical Applications,

    K. Cleary and T. M. Peters, “Image-Guided Interventions: Technology Review and Clinical Applications,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 119–142, 2010

    2010

  17. [20]

    30 Years of Neurosurgical Robots: Review and Trends for Manipulators and Associated Navigational Systems,

    J. Smith et al., “30 Years of Neurosurgical Robots: Review and Trends for Manipulators and Associated Navigational Systems,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 836–846, 2016

    2016

  18. [21]

    Basis for error in stereotactic and computer-assisted surgery in neurosurgical applications: Literature review,

    G. Pivazyan et al., “Basis for error in stereotactic and computer-assisted surgery in neurosurgical applications: Literature review,” NEUROSUR- GICAL REVIEW, vol. 46, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  19. [22]

    A Review of Formulations, Boundary Value Problems and Solutions for Numerical Computation of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Fields,

    J. A. P ´erez-Ben´ıtez et al., “A Review of Formulations, Boundary Value Problems and Solutions for Numerical Computation of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Fields,” Brain Sciences, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 1142, 2023

    2023

  20. [23]

    A review of algorithms and software for real-time electric field modeling techniques for transcranial magnetic stimula- tion

    T. Y . Park et al. , “A review of algorithms and software for real-time electric field modeling techniques for transcranial magnetic stimula- tion.” Biomedical engineering letters, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 393–405, 2024

    2024

  21. [24]

    Individualized brain mapping for navigated neuromod- ulation

    C. Gao et al., “Individualized brain mapping for navigated neuromod- ulation.” Chinese medical journal , vol. 137, no. 5, pp. 508–523, 2024

    2024

  22. [25]

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation in therapy studies: Examination of the reliability of

    U. Herwig et al., “Transcranial magnetic stimulation in therapy studies: Examination of the reliability of ”standard” coil positioning by neu- ronavigation,” Biological Psychiatry, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 58–61, 2001

    2001

  23. [26]

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the challenge of coil placement: A comparison of conventional and stereotaxic neuronavigational strategies,

    R. Sparing et al., “Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the challenge of coil placement: A comparison of conventional and stereotaxic neuronavigational strategies,” Human Brain Mapping , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 82–96, 2008

    2008

  24. [27]

    Current status and potential application of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurosurgery: A literature review

    X. Fang et al. , “Current status and potential application of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurosurgery: A literature review.” Chinese neurosurgical journal, vol. 5, p. 12, 2019

    2019

  25. [28]

    Comparing navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping and

    H.-R. Jeltema et al. , “Comparing navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping and ”gold standard” direct cortical stimulation mapping in neurosurgery: A systematic review.” Neurosurgical review, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1903–1920, 2021

    1903

  26. [29]

    Richter, Robotized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

    L. Richter, Robotized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation . New York, NY: Springer New York, 2013

    2013

  27. [30]

    A robotic assistance system for transcranial magnetic stimulation and its application to motor cortex mapping,

    L. Matth ¨aus, “A robotic assistance system for transcranial magnetic stimulation and its application to motor cortex mapping,” Ph.D. disser- tation, The University of L ¨ubeck, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Inc., 2025, Accessed on: Apr

    M. Inc., 2025, Accessed on: Apr. 7, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.magstim.com/product/horizon-lite/

    2025

  29. [37]

    Robotics, 2025, Accessed on: Apr

    A. Robotics, 2025, Accessed on: Apr. 7, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.axilumrobotics.com/en/tms-cobot-features/

    2025

  30. [38]

    Corp., 2025, Accessed on: Apr

    Y . Corp., 2025, Accessed on: Apr. 7, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.yiruide.com/news/114.html

    2025

  31. [39]

    Development and Positioning Reliability of a TMS Coil Holder for Headache Research,

    E. P. Chronicle et al. , “Development and Positioning Reliability of a TMS Coil Holder for Headache Research,” Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 37–41, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Use of neurosurgical robot for aiming and holding in cortical TMS experiments,

    S. Narayana et al., “Use of neurosurgical robot for aiming and holding in cortical TMS experiments,” NeuroImage, vol. 11, no. 5, p. S471, 2000

    2000

  33. [41]

    Evaluation of an image-guided, robotically positioned transcranial magnetic stimulation system,

    J. L. Lancaster et al. , “Evaluation of an image-guided, robotically positioned transcranial magnetic stimulation system,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 329–340, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Robotized TMS for motion compensated navigated brain stimulation,

    L. Matth ¨aus, “Robotized TMS for motion compensated navigated brain stimulation,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 1, no. S1, pp. 137–145, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Hot spot hound: A novel robot-assisted platform for enhancing TMS performance,

    G. Pennimpede et al., “Hot spot hound: A novel robot-assisted platform for enhancing TMS performance,” in 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2013-07-03/2013-07-07, pp. 6301–6304

    2013

  36. [44]

    BRAIN initiative: Transcranial magnetic stimula- tion automation and calibration,

    G. D. Todd et al. , “BRAIN initiative: Transcranial magnetic stimula- tion automation and calibration,” in 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society . Chicago, IL: IEEE, 2014, pp. 502–505

    2014

  37. [45]

    A method for evaluation and comparison of parallel robots for safe human interaction, applied to robotic TMS,

    J. J. de Jong et al., “A method for evaluation and comparison of parallel robots for safe human interaction, applied to robotic TMS,” in 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) , 2012-06-24/2012-06-27, pp. 986–991

    2012

  38. [46]

    A robotic system for automated image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    C. Lebosse et al. , “A robotic system for automated image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation,” in 2007 IEEE/NIH Life Science Systems and Applications Workshop . Bethesda, MD, USA: IEEE, 2007, pp. 55–58

    2007

  39. [47]

    Design and Evaluation of a Robotic System for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,

    L. Zorn et al. , “Design and Evaluation of a Robotic System for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 805–815, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Design of a robotic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation system,

    Xiang Yi and R. Bicker, “Design of a robotic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation system,” in 2010 IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automa- tion and Mechatronics . Singapore: IEEE, 2010, pp. 78–83

    2010

  41. [49]

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain re- gions: Evidence for efficacy of the H-Coil,

    A. Zangen et al., “Transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain re- gions: Evidence for efficacy of the H-Coil,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 116, no. 4, pp. 775–779, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    Inside-out tracking and projection mapping for robot- assisted transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    Y . Liu et al. , “Inside-out tracking and projection mapping for robot- assisted transcranial magnetic stimulation,” in Optical Architectures for Displays and Sensing in Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality (AR, VR, MR) III , B. C. Kress and C. Peroz, Eds. San Francisco, Unit...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Haptically-Enabled Robotic Teleoperation for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TeleTMS),

    P. M. Kebria et al. , “Haptically-Enabled Robotic Teleoperation for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TeleTMS),” in 2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) . Honolulu, Oahu, HI, USA: IEEE, 2023, pp. 2100–2105

    2023

  44. [52]

    CortexBot: 3D Visual Fusion of Robotic Neuronavi- gated TMS System,

    Z. Xiao et al. , “CortexBot: 3D Visual Fusion of Robotic Neuronavi- gated TMS System,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cyborg and Bionic Systems (CBS) , 2018, pp. 406–411

    2018

  45. [53]

    No-attachment head tracking method of robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation based on vision sensor,

    Y . Chen et al. , “No-attachment head tracking method of robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation based on vision sensor,” in 2020 16th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV). Shenzhen, China: IEEE, 2020, pp. 1366–1371

    2020

  46. [54]

    Multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation— theory and implementation,

    L. M. Koponen et al., “Multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation— theory and implementation,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 849– 855, 2018. 14

    2018

  47. [55]

    Multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation system for electronically targeted brain stimulation,

    J. O. Nieminen et al. , “Multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation system for electronically targeted brain stimulation,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 116–124, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Robotic–electronic platform for autonomous and accurate transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting,

    R. H. Matsuda et al. , “Robotic–electronic platform for autonomous and accurate transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting,” Brain Stim- ulation, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 469–472, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Modulating brain networks in space and time: Multi- locus transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    H. Sinisalo et al., “Modulating brain networks in space and time: Multi- locus transcranial magnetic stimulation,”Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 158, pp. 218–224, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Theoretical Analysis and Design of an Innovative Coil Structure for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,

    N. Zhang et al., “Theoretical Analysis and Design of an Innovative Coil Structure for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,” Applied Sciences , vol. 11, no. 4, p. 1960, 2021

    1960

  51. [59]

    Electric field depth–focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: Simulation comparison of 50 coil designs,

    Z.-D. Deng et al., “Electric field depth–focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: Simulation comparison of 50 coil designs,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2013

    2013

  52. [60]

    Localized stimulation of neural tissues in the brain by means of a paired configuration of time-varying magnetic fields,

    S. Ueno et al. , “Localized stimulation of neural tissues in the brain by means of a paired configuration of time-varying magnetic fields,” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 5862–5864, 1988

    1988

  53. [61]

    Advances in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Technology,

    A. V . Peterchev et al., “Advances in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Technology,” inBrain Stimulation, 1st ed., I. M. Reti, Ed. Wiley, 2015, pp. 165–189

    2015

  54. [62]

    Effect of coil size on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) focality,

    H. Bagherzadeh and F.-S. Choa, “Effect of coil size on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) focality,” in Smart Biomedical and Physi- ological Sensor Technology XVI, B. M. Cullum et al., Eds. Baltimore, United States: SPIE, 2019, p. 38

    2019

  55. [63]

    Comparison of the induced fields using different coil configurations during deep transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    M. Lu and S. Ueno, “Comparison of the induced fields using different coil configurations during deep transcranial magnetic stimulation,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 6, p. e0178422, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    H-coil: Induced electric field properties and in- put/output curves on healthy volunteers, comparison with a standard figure-of-eight coil,

    T. Fadini et al. , “H-coil: Induced electric field properties and in- put/output curves on healthy volunteers, comparison with a standard figure-of-eight coil,” Clinical Neurophysiology , vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 1174–1182, 2009

    2009

  57. [65]

    Design of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coils With Optimized Stimulation Depth,

    J. A. V . Membrilla et al., “Design of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coils With Optimized Stimulation Depth,” IEEE Access , vol. 12, pp. 1330–1340, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Advanced Pipeline for Designing Multi-Locus TMS Coils With Current Density Constraints,

    I. J. Rissanen et al. , “Advanced Pipeline for Designing Multi-Locus TMS Coils With Current Density Constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 2025–2034, 2023

    2025

  59. [67]

    Electric field properties of two com- mercial figure-8 coils in TMS: Calculation of focality and efficiency,

    A. Thielscher and T. Kammer, “Electric field properties of two com- mercial figure-8 coils in TMS: Calculation of focality and efficiency,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 115, no. 7, pp. 1697–1708, 2004

    2004

  60. [68]

    Database of 25 validated coil models for electric field simulations for TMS,

    M. Drakaki et al. , “Database of 25 validated coil models for electric field simulations for TMS,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 697– 706, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    Design of transcranial magnetic stimulation coils with optimal trade-off between depth, focality, and energy,

    L. J. Gomez et al., “Design of transcranial magnetic stimulation coils with optimal trade-off between depth, focality, and energy,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 046033, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    Trade-off between stimulation focality and the number of coils in multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    S. Nurmi et al., “Trade-off between stimulation focality and the number of coils in multi-locus transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 066003, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Robust real-time robot–world calibration for robo- tized transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    L. Richter et al. , “Robust real-time robot–world calibration for robo- tized transcranial magnetic stimulation,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 414–422, 2011

    2011

  64. [72]

    Non-orthogonal one-step calibration method for robotized transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    H. Wang et al. , “Non-orthogonal one-step calibration method for robotized transcranial magnetic stimulation,” BioMedical Engineering OnLine, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 137, 2018

    2018

  65. [73]

    A Stochastic Global Optimization Algorithm for the Two- Frame Sensor Calibration Problem,

    J. Ha et al., “A Stochastic Global Optimization Algorithm for the Two- Frame Sensor Calibration Problem,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 2434–2446, 2016

    2016

  66. [74]

    Non-orthogonal tool/flange and robot/world calibra- tion,

    F. Ernst et al. , “Non-orthogonal tool/flange and robot/world calibra- tion,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 407–420, 2012

    2012

  67. [75]

    Simultaneous robot-world and hand-eye calibration,

    F. Dornaika and R. Horaud, “Simultaneous robot-world and hand-eye calibration,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 617–622, 1998

    1998

  68. [76]

    GBEC: Geometry-Based Hand-Eye Calibration,

    Y . Liu et al., “GBEC: Geometry-Based Hand-Eye Calibration,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 16 698–16 705

    2024

  69. [77]

    An Image-Guided Robotic System for Transcranial Mag- netic Stimulation: System Development and Experimental Evaluation,

    Y . Liu et al., “An Image-Guided Robotic System for Transcranial Mag- netic Stimulation: System Development and Experimental Evaluation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1936–1943, 2025

    1936

  70. [78]

    Neuronavigation in the surgical management of brain tumors: Current and future trends,

    D. Orringer et al. , “Neuronavigation in the surgical management of brain tumors: Current and future trends,” Expert Review of Medical Devices, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 491–500, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Accuracy and precision of navigated transcra- nial magnetic stimulation,

    A. E. Nieminen et al., “Accuracy and precision of navigated transcra- nial magnetic stimulation,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 19, no. 6, p. 066037, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Verification of neuronavigated TMS accuracy using structured-light 3D scans,

    N. Matilainen et al. , “Verification of neuronavigated TMS accuracy using structured-light 3D scans,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 69, no. 8, p. 085004, 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Localization and registration accuracy in image guided neurosurgery: A clinical study,

    R. R. Shamir et al. , “Localization and registration accuracy in image guided neurosurgery: A clinical study,” International Journal of Com- puter Assisted Radiology and Surgery , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45–52, 2009

    2009

  74. [82]

    Anatomical landmarks for point-matching regis- tration in image-guided neurosurgery: Anatomical landmarks for Point Matching Registration in IGN,

    A. I. Omara et al. , “Anatomical landmarks for point-matching regis- tration in image-guided neurosurgery: Anatomical landmarks for Point Matching Registration in IGN,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 55–64, 2014

    2014

  75. [83]

    Proposal for an accurate TMS-MRI co-registration process via 3D laser scanning,

    N. Hironaga et al., “Proposal for an accurate TMS-MRI co-registration process via 3D laser scanning,” Neuroscience Research, vol. 144, pp. 30–39, 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) localization by co-registration of facial point clouds,

    G. Liu et al. , “Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) localization by co-registration of facial point clouds,” Brain Stimulation , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 79–81, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    A review of non-rigid transformations and learning-based 3d point cloud registration methods,

    S. Monji-Azad et al. , “A review of non-rigid transformations and learning-based 3d point cloud registration methods,” ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing , vol. 196, pp. 58–72, 2023

    2023

  78. [86]

    Multimodal Image Registration for Preoperative Planning and Image-Guided Neurosurgical Procedures,

    P. Risholm et al. , “Multimodal Image Registration for Preoperative Planning and Image-Guided Neurosurgical Procedures,” Neurosurgery Clinics of North America , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 197–206, 2011

    2011

  79. [87]

    Motor threshold in transcranial magnetic stimu- lation: The impact of white matter fiber orientation and skull-to-cortex distance,

    T. Herbsman et al. , “Motor threshold in transcranial magnetic stimu- lation: The impact of white matter fiber orientation and skull-to-cortex distance,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 2044–2055, 2009

    2009

  80. [88]

    TMS and threshold hunting,

    F. Awiszus, “TMS and threshold hunting,” in Supplements to Clinical Neurophysiology. Elsevier, 2003, vol. 56, pp. 13–23

    2003

  81. [89]

    Automated TMS hotspot-hunting using a closed loop threshold-based algorithm,

    J. Meincke et al. , “Automated TMS hotspot-hunting using a closed loop threshold-based algorithm,” NeuroImage, vol. 124, pp. 509–517, 2016

    2016

  82. [90]

    Automatized set-up procedure for transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols,

    S. Harquel et al. , “Automatized set-up procedure for transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols,” NeuroImage, vol. 153, pp. 307–318, 2017

    2017

  83. [91]

    Automated search of stimulation targets with closed-loop transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    A. E. Tervo et al. , “Automated search of stimulation targets with closed-loop transcranial magnetic stimulation,” NeuroImage, vol. 220, p. 117082, 2020

    2020

  84. [92]

    Closed-loop optimization of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography feedback,

    A. E. Tervo et al., “Closed-loop optimization of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography feedback,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 523–531, 2022

    2022

  85. [93]

    Accurate Coil Positioning is Important for Single and Paired Pulse TMS on the Subject Level,

    A. A. De Goede et al. , “Accurate Coil Positioning is Important for Single and Paired Pulse TMS on the Subject Level,” Brain Topography, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 917–930, 2018

    2018

  86. [94]

    Advantages of Optical Compared with Electromagnetic Tracking,

    N. D. Glossop, “Advantages of Optical Compared with Electromagnetic Tracking,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery , vol. 91, no. Supple- ment 1, pp. 23–28, 2009

    2009

  87. [95]

    Flexible Layouts for Fiducial Tags,

    M. Krogius et al. , “Flexible Layouts for Fiducial Tags,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2019, pp. 1898–1903

    2019

  88. [96]

    Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,

    S. Garrido-Jurado et al., “Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2280–2292, 2014

    2014

  89. [97]

    Development and characterization of the InVesalius Navigator software for navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    V . H. Souza et al., “Development and characterization of the InVesalius Navigator software for navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods , vol. 309, pp. 109–120, 2018

    2018

  90. [98]

    Trajectory tracking control of robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    Z. Lin et al. , “Trajectory tracking control of robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation,” International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 245–259, 2019

    2019

  91. [99]

    Device-Based Modulation of Neurocircuits as a Therapeutic for Psychiatric Disorders,

    Z.-D. Deng et al. , “Device-Based Modulation of Neurocircuits as a Therapeutic for Psychiatric Disorders,” Annual Review of Pharmacol- ogy and Toxicology, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 591–614, 2020

    2020

  92. [100]

    Neural stimulation with magnetic fields: Analysis of induced electric fields,

    K. Esselle and M. Stuchly, “Neural stimulation with magnetic fields: Analysis of induced electric fields,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 693–700, 1992

    1992

  93. [101]

    Brain stimulation using electromag- netic sources: Theoretical aspects,

    L. Heller and D. Van Hulsteyn, “Brain stimulation using electromag- netic sources: Theoretical aspects,” Biophysical Journal, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 129–138, 1992

    1992

  94. [102]

    Three-Dimensional Head Model Simulation of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,

    T. Wagner et al. , “Three-Dimensional Head Model Simulation of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1586–1598, 2004

    2004

  95. [103]

    Comparison of spherical and realistically shaped boundary element head models for transcranial magnetic stim- ulation navigation,

    A. Nummenmaa et al. , “Comparison of spherical and realistically shaped boundary element head models for transcranial magnetic stim- ulation navigation,” Clinical Neurophysiology , vol. 124, no. 10, pp. 1995–2007, 2013. 15

    1995

  96. [104]

    Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Improved Coil Design and Assessment of the Induced Fields Using Realistic Head Model,

    X. Wei et al., “Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Improved Coil Design and Assessment of the Induced Fields Using Realistic Head Model,” in 2019 Chinese Control Conference (CCC) . Guangzhou, China: IEEE, 2019, pp. 3727–3731

    2019

  97. [105]

    Inter-subject Variability in Electric Fields of Motor Cortical tDCS,

    I. Laakso et al. , “Inter-subject Variability in Electric Fields of Motor Cortical tDCS,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 906–913, 2015

    2015

  98. [106]

    Where and what TMS activates: Experiments and modeling,

    I. Laakso et al. , “Where and what TMS activates: Experiments and modeling,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 166–174, 2018

    2018

  99. [107]

    Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimula- tion: A useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS?

    A. Thielscher et al., “Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimula- tion: A useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS?” in 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) . Milan: IEEE, 2015, pp. 222–225

    2015

  100. [108]

    Automatic skull segmentation from MR images for realistic volume conductor models of the head: Assessment of the state-of-the-art,

    J. D. Nielsen et al. , “Automatic skull segmentation from MR images for realistic volume conductor models of the head: Assessment of the state-of-the-art,” NeuroImage, vol. 174, pp. 587–598, 2018

    2018

  101. [109]

    Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate tran- scranial electric stimulation—ROAST—a fully automated open-source pipeline,

    Y . Huang et al. , “Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate tran- scranial electric stimulation—ROAST—a fully automated open-source pipeline,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 16, no. 5, p. 056006, 2019

    2019

  102. [110]

    Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    A. Thielscher et al., “Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation,” NeuroImage, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 234–243, 2011

    2011

  103. [111]

    SimNIBS 2.1: A Comprehensive Pipeline for Individualized Electric Field Modelling for Transcranial Brain Stimulation,

    G. B. Saturnino et al. , “SimNIBS 2.1: A Comprehensive Pipeline for Individualized Electric Field Modelling for Transcranial Brain Stimulation,” 2018

    2018

  104. [112]

    Accurate and robust whole-head segmentation from magnetic resonance images for individualized head modeling,

    O. Puonti et al., “Accurate and robust whole-head segmentation from magnetic resonance images for individualized head modeling,” Neu- roImage, vol. 219, p. 117044, 2020

    2020

  105. [113]

    Conditions for numerically accurate TMS electric field simulation,

    L. J. Gomez et al., “Conditions for numerically accurate TMS electric field simulation,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 157–166, 2020

    2020

  106. [114]

    The navigation of transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    U. Herwig et al., “The navigation of transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging , vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 123–131, 2001

    2001

  107. [115]

    Comparison between electric-field-navigated and line-navigated TMS for cortical motor mapping in patients with brain tumors,

    N. Sollmann et al., “Comparison between electric-field-navigated and line-navigated TMS for cortical motor mapping in patients with brain tumors,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 158, no. 12, pp. 2277–2289, 2016

    2016

  108. [116]

    Where does TMS Stimulate the Motor Cortex? Combining Electrophysiological Measurements and Realistic Field Estimates to Reveal the Affected Cortex Position,

    A. Bungert et al. , “Where does TMS Stimulate the Motor Cortex? Combining Electrophysiological Measurements and Realistic Field Estimates to Reveal the Affected Cortex Position,” Cerebral Cortex, p. cercor;bhw292v1, 2016

    2016

  109. [117]

    Fast computational E-field dosimetry for transcranial magnetic stimulation using adaptive cross approximation and auxiliary dipole method (ACA-ADM),

    D. Wang et al., “Fast computational E-field dosimetry for transcranial magnetic stimulation using adaptive cross approximation and auxiliary dipole method (ACA-ADM),” NeuroImage, vol. 267, p. 119850, 2023

    2023

  110. [118]

    Real-Time Computation of Brain E-Field for Enhanced Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Neuronavigation and Op- timization,

    N. I. Hasan et al. , “Real-Time Computation of Brain E-Field for Enhanced Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Neuronavigation and Op- timization,” 2023

    2023

  111. [119]

    Fast and accurate computational E-field dosimetry for group-level transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting,

    N. I. Hasan et al., “Fast and accurate computational E-field dosimetry for group-level transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting,” Computers in Biology and Medicine , vol. 167, p. 107614, 2023

    2023

  112. [120]

    A Quasi-Static Boundary Element Approach With Fast Multipole Acceleration for High-Resolution Bioelectromag- netic Models,

    S. N. Makarov et al. , “A Quasi-Static Boundary Element Approach With Fast Multipole Acceleration for High-Resolution Bioelectromag- netic Models,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 2675–2683, 2018

    2018

  113. [121]

    Comparative performance of the finite element method and the boundary element fast multipole method for problems mimicking transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS),

    A. T. Htet et al. , “Comparative performance of the finite element method and the boundary element fast multipole method for problems mimicking transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS),” Journal of Neu- ral Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 024001, 2019

    2019

  114. [122]

    Real-time computation of the TMS- induced electric field in a realistic head model,

    M. Stenroos and L. M. Koponen, “Real-time computation of the TMS- induced electric field in a realistic head model,” NeuroImage, vol. 203, p. 116159, 2019

    2019

  115. [123]

    Rapid computation of TMS-induced E-fields using a dipole-based magnetic stimulation profile approach,

    M. Daneshzand et al. , “Rapid computation of TMS-induced E-fields using a dipole-based magnetic stimulation profile approach,” NeuroIm- age, vol. 237, p. 118097, 2021

    2021

  116. [124]

    A fast direct solver for surface-based whole- head modeling of transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    S. N. Makaroff et al. , “A fast direct solver for surface-based whole- head modeling of transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 18657, 2023

    2023

  117. [125]

    A reconstruction of the conductive phenomena elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation in heterogeneous brain tissue,

    N. Toschi et al., “A reconstruction of the conductive phenomena elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation in heterogeneous brain tissue,” Physica Medica, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 80–86, 2008

    2008

  118. [126]

    Fast multigrid-based computation of the induced electric field for transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    I. Laakso and A. Hirata, “Fast multigrid-based computation of the induced electric field for transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Physics in Medicine and Biology , vol. 57, no. 23, pp. 7753–7765, 2012

    2012

  119. [127]

    A Computational Model for Real-Time Calculation of Electric Field due to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Clinics,

    A. Paffi et al., “A Computational Model for Real-Time Calculation of Electric Field due to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Clinics,” International Journal of Antennas and Propagation , vol. 2015, pp. 1– 11, 2015

    2015

  120. [128]

    Elucidating the mechanisms and loci of neuronal excitation by transcranial magnetic stimulation using a finite element model of a cortical sulcus,

    S. Silva et al. , “Elucidating the mechanisms and loci of neuronal excitation by transcranial magnetic stimulation using a finite element model of a cortical sulcus,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 119, no. 10, pp. 2405–2413, 2008

    2008

  121. [129]

    Preliminary Upper Estimate of Peak Currents in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Distant Locations From a TMS Coil,

    S. N. Makarov et al., “Preliminary Upper Estimate of Peak Currents in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Distant Locations From a TMS Coil,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 1944–1955, 2016

    1944

  122. [130]

    Effect of coil positioning and orientation of the quadruple butterfly coil during transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    O. F. Afuwape et al., “Effect of coil positioning and orientation of the quadruple butterfly coil during transcranial magnetic stimulation,” AIP Advances, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 015212, 2021

    2021

  123. [131]

    Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-coil design with improved focality,

    P. Rastogi et al., “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-coil design with improved focality,” AIP Advances, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 056705, 2017

    2017

  124. [132]

    Value and limitations of intracranial recordings for validating electric field modeling for transcranial brain stimulation,

    O. Puonti et al. , “Value and limitations of intracranial recordings for validating electric field modeling for transcranial brain stimulation,” NeuroImage, vol. 208, p. 116431, 2020

    2020

  125. [133]

    Fast computational optimization of TMS coil placement for individualized electric field targeting,

    L. J. Gomez et al. , “Fast computational optimization of TMS coil placement for individualized electric field targeting,” NeuroImage, vol. 228, p. 117696, 2021

    2021

  126. [134]

    ROAST: An Open-Source, Fully-Automated, Realistic V olumetric-Approach-Based Simulator For TES,

    Y . Huang et al., “ROAST: An Open-Source, Fully-Automated, Realistic V olumetric-Approach-Based Simulator For TES,” in2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). Honolulu, HI: IEEE, 2018, pp. 3072–3075

    2018

  127. [135]

    A stereotactic method for image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation validated with fMRI and motor-evoked poten- tials,

    S. Neggers et al., “A stereotactic method for image-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation validated with fMRI and motor-evoked poten- tials,” NeuroImage, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1805–1817, 2004

    2004

  128. [136]

    Real-time estimation of electric fields induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation with deep neural networks,

    T. Yokota et al. , “Real-time estimation of electric fields induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation with deep neural networks,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1500–1507, 2019

    2019

  129. [137]

    Rapid whole-brain electric field mapping in transcranial magnetic stimulation using deep learning,

    G. Xu et al., “Rapid whole-brain electric field mapping in transcranial magnetic stimulation using deep learning,” PLOS ONE, vol. 16, no. 7, p. e0254588, 2021

    2021

  130. [138]

    Computation of transcranial magnetic stimulation electric fields using self-supervised deep learning,

    H. Li et al., “Computation of transcranial magnetic stimulation electric fields using self-supervised deep learning,” NeuroImage, vol. 264, p. 119705, 2022

    2022

  131. [139]

    SlicerTMS: Real-Time Visualization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Mental Health Treatment,

    L. Franke et al., “SlicerTMS: Real-Time Visualization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Mental Health Treatment,” 2024

    2024

  132. [140]

    Effects of posture on electric fields of non-invasive brain stimulation,

    M. Mikkonen and I. Laakso, “Effects of posture on electric fields of non-invasive brain stimulation,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 64, no. 6, p. 065019, 2019

    2019

  133. [141]

    Mitigating the risk of overdosing TMS due to coil-to-scalp distance: An electric field modeling study,

    K. A. Caulfield et al. , “Mitigating the risk of overdosing TMS due to coil-to-scalp distance: An electric field modeling study,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 970–974, 2024

    2024

  134. [142]

    Hand-assisted positioning and contact pressure control for motion compensated robotized transcranial magnetic stim- ulation,

    L. Richter et al. , “Hand-assisted positioning and contact pressure control for motion compensated robotized transcranial magnetic stim- ulation,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 845–852, 2012

    2012

  135. [143]

    Stimulus Intensity for Hand Held and Robotic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,

    L. Richter et al. , “Stimulus Intensity for Hand Held and Robotic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,” Brain Stimulation , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 315–321, 2013

    2013

  136. [144]

    Evaluation of Hand-Eye and Robot-World Calibra- tion Algorithms for TMS Application,

    A. Noccaro et al., “Evaluation of Hand-Eye and Robot-World Calibra- tion Algorithms for TMS Application,” in 2018 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob) . Enschede: IEEE, 2018, pp. 1115–1119

    2018

  137. [145]

    Electric field simulations for transcranial brain stimulation using FEM: An efficient implementation and error analysis,

    G. B. Saturnino et al. , “Electric field simulations for transcranial brain stimulation using FEM: An efficient implementation and error analysis,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 16, no. 6, p. 066032, 2019

    2019

  138. [146]

    Robot-assisted transcranial magnetic stimulation using hybrid position/force control,

    P. Jaroonsorn et al., “Robot-assisted transcranial magnetic stimulation using hybrid position/force control,” Advanced Robotics , vol. 34, no. 24, pp. 1559–1570, 2020

    2020

  139. [147]

    Comparison of consistency between image guided and craniometric transcranial magnetic stimulation coil placement,

    I. M. Young et al., “Comparison of consistency between image guided and craniometric transcranial magnetic stimulation coil placement,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1465–1466, 2022

    2022

  140. [148]

    Accuracy of an individualized MR-based head model for navigated brain stimulation,

    F. Carducci and R. Brusco, “Accuracy of an individualized MR-based head model for navigated brain stimulation,” Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, vol. 203, no. 1, pp. 105–108, 2012

    2012

  141. [149]

    Accuracy of robotic coil positioning during transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    S. M. Goetz et al. , “Accuracy of robotic coil positioning during transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 16, no. 5, p. 054003, 2019

    2019

  142. [150]

    Neuronavigation maximizes accuracy and precision in TMS positioning: Evidence from 11,230 distance, angle, and electric field modeling measurements,

    K. A. Caulfield et al. , “Neuronavigation maximizes accuracy and precision in TMS positioning: Evidence from 11,230 distance, angle, and electric field modeling measurements,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1192–1205, 2022

    2022

  143. [151]

    3D-mapping of TMS effects with automatic robotic placement improved reliability and the risk of 16 spurious correlation,

    L. C. Dormegny-Jeanjean et al. , “3D-mapping of TMS effects with automatic robotic placement improved reliability and the risk of 16 spurious correlation,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods , vol. 381, p. 109689, 2022

    2022

  144. [152]

    Robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: A pilot study,

    H. Shin et al. , “Robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: A pilot study,” Scientific Reports , vol. 13, no. 1, p. 14074, 2023

    2023

  145. [153]

    P. E. Tarapore et al., “Preoperative multimodal motor mapping: A com- parison of magnetoencephalography imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation: Clinical article,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 354–362, 2012

    2012

  146. [154]

    Utility of presurgical navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation for the resection of tumors in eloquent motor areas: Clinical article,

    S. M. Krieg et al. , “Utility of presurgical navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation for the resection of tumors in eloquent motor areas: Clinical article,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 116, no. 5, pp. 994–1001, 2012

    2012

  147. [155]

    Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for mapping the motor cortex in patients with rolandic brain tumors

    S. Takahashi et al. , “Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for mapping the motor cortex in patients with rolandic brain tumors.” Neurosurgical focus, vol. 34, no. 4, p. E3, 2013

    2013

  148. [156]

    Comparison of direct cortical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation in brain tumor surgery: Systematic review and meta analyses,

    R. S. Indharty et al. , “Comparison of direct cortical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation in brain tumor surgery: Systematic review and meta analyses,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 505–514, 2023

    2023

  149. [157]

    Heads-Up Micronavigation Reliability of Pre- operative Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Maps for the Motor Function: Comparison With Direct Cortical Stimulation,

    G. Muscas et al. , “Heads-Up Micronavigation Reliability of Pre- operative Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Maps for the Motor Function: Comparison With Direct Cortical Stimulation,” Operative Neurosurgery, 2023

    2023

  150. [158]

    Realtime Robust Shape Estimation of Deformable Linear Object,

    J. Zhang et al. , “Realtime Robust Shape Estimation of Deformable Linear Object,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 10 734–10 740

    2024

  151. [159]

    Dynamic trajectory-tracking control method of robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation with end-effector gravity compen- sation based on force sensors,

    Z. Lin et al. , “Dynamic trajectory-tracking control method of robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation with end-effector gravity compen- sation based on force sensors,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 722–731, 2018

    2018

  152. [160]

    Model predictive control architectures with force feedback for robotic-assisted beating heart surgery,

    M. Dominici and R. Cortesao, “Model predictive control architectures with force feedback for robotic-assisted beating heart surgery,” in 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 2276–2282

    2014

  153. [161]

    Learning-based force control of a surgical robot for tool-soft tissue interaction,

    Q. Ren et al. , “Learning-based force control of a surgical robot for tool-soft tissue interaction,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6345–6352, 2021

    2021

  154. [162]

    Optimal Coil Orientation for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,

    L. Richter et al., “Optimal Coil Orientation for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 4, p. e60358, 2013

    2013

  155. [163]

    Robotic TMS mapping of motor cortex in the developing brain,

    J. Grab et al., “Robotic TMS mapping of motor cortex in the developing brain,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods , vol. 309, pp. 41–54, 2018

    2018

  156. [164]

    Recovery of reward function in problematic substance users using a combination of robotics, electrophysiology, and TMS,

    K. Biernacki et al. , “Recovery of reward function in problematic substance users using a combination of robotics, electrophysiology, and TMS,” International Journal of Psychophysiology , vol. 158, pp. 288–298, 2020

    2020

  157. [165]

    The value of preoperative functional cortical mapping using navigated TMS

    J.-P. Lefaucheur and T. Picht, “The value of preoperative functional cortical mapping using navigated TMS.” Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 125–133, 2016

    2016

  158. [166]

    Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation improves the treatment outcome in patients with brain tumors in motor eloquent locations,

    D. Frey et al., “Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation improves the treatment outcome in patients with brain tumors in motor eloquent locations,” Neuro-Oncology, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1365–1372, 2014

    2014

  159. [167]

    Presurgical navigated TMS motor cortex mapping improves outcome in glioblastoma surgery: A controlled observational study,

    T. Picht et al. , “Presurgical navigated TMS motor cortex mapping improves outcome in glioblastoma surgery: A controlled observational study,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 535–543, 2016

    2016

  160. [168]

    The role of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for surgery of motor-eloquent brain tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

    G. Raffa et al., “The role of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for surgery of motor-eloquent brain tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, vol. 180, pp. 7– 17, 2019

    2019

  161. [169]

    Guidelines for tms/tes clinical services and research through the covid-19 pandemic,

    M. Bikson et al., “Guidelines for tms/tes clinical services and research through the covid-19 pandemic,” Brain stimulation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1124–1149, 2020

    2020

  162. [170]

    Sound comparison of seven TMS coils at matched stimulation strength,

    L. M. Koponen et al. , “Sound comparison of seven TMS coils at matched stimulation strength,” Brain Stimulation , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 873–880, 2020

    2020

  163. [171]

    Neural effects of transcranial magnetic stimu- lation at the single-cell level,

    M. C. Romero et al. , “Neural effects of transcranial magnetic stimu- lation at the single-cell level,” Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2642, 2019

    2019

  164. [172]

    Targeting repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression: do we really know what we are stimulating and how best to do it?

    P. B. Fitzgerald, “Targeting repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression: do we really know what we are stimulating and how best to do it?” Brain stimulation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 730–736, 2021

    2021

  165. [173]

    Exploring the spatial resolution of tms-eeg coupling on the sensorimotor region,

    B. Passera et al., “Exploring the spatial resolution of tms-eeg coupling on the sensorimotor region,” NeuroImage, vol. 259, p. 119419, 2022

    2022

  166. [174]

    Individualized and clinically friendly helmet-type coil positioning method (I-Helmet) for transcranial magnetic stimulation,

    H. Wang et al., “Individualized and clinically friendly helmet-type coil positioning method (I-Helmet) for transcranial magnetic stimulation,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1023–1025, 2022

    2022

  167. [175]

    How coil misalignment and mispositioning in transcranial magnetic stimulation affect the stimulation strength at the target,

    M. Koehler et al. , “How coil misalignment and mispositioning in transcranial magnetic stimulation affect the stimulation strength at the target,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 162, pp. 159–161, 2024

    2024

  168. [176]

    Registration and Real-Time Visualization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation With 3-D MR Images,

    Q. Noirhomme et al. , “Registration and Real-Time Visualization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation With 3-D MR Images,”IEEE Trans- actions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 1994–2005, 2004

    1994

  169. [177]

    Navigated and Robotized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation based on 3D Laser Scans,

    L. Richter et al. , “Navigated and Robotized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation based on 3D Laser Scans,” in Bildverarbeitung f ¨ur die Medizin 2011 , H. Handels et al. , Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 164–168

    2011

  170. [178]

    Electric Field Modeling in Personalizing Tran- scranial Magnetic Stimulation Interventions,

    M. Dannhauer et al., “Electric Field Modeling in Personalizing Tran- scranial Magnetic Stimulation Interventions,” Biological Psychiatry , vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 494–501, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.