Back

Tactile Perception and Tolerability Thresholds of TMS Characterized by Intensity across Locations and Frequencies

Nesmith, N.; Senda, M.; Hou, Y.; Dev, K.; Spitz, A. M.; Kozel, F. A.; Johnson, K. A.

2026-01-30 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.01.28.26345065 medRxiv
Show abstract

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) involves pulsed magnetic fields that pass through the scalp to stimulate the brain, with incidental stimulation to superficial nerves and muscles. From a research perspective, the tactile sensations can be a problematic confound, particularly when stimulation approaches an unpleasant or painful level. Additionally, tactile sensations contribute to difficult challenges in establishing an appropriate sham control condition. Clinically, some patients find stimulation uncomfortable or intolerable. Clinicians need data on adjustments to stimulation parameters to improve tolerability and efficacy. The primary objective of this study was to characterize the tolerability of TMS by location (over modified Beam F3 prefrontal, THREE-D prefrontal, right orbitofrontal, medial prefrontal, motor, and parietal cortical targets, as well as the knee) and by frequency (1 Hz, 10 Hz, or iTBS), with increasing levels of stimulation intensity. We also characterized sensory thresholds and qualitative aspects of stimulation across locations and frequencies. For location, sites distal to the facial nerves and muscle (Knee, P3, M1, mPFC) were more tolerable, followed by Beam F3, with the THREE-D and AF8 locations as least tolerable. For frequency, we found that 1 Hz was significantly more tolerable than 10 Hz and iTBS. iTBS was more annoying than 10 Hz but only marginally different in tolerability. TMS researchers and clinicians should understand the impact of sensation based on location and frequency, with increasing stimulation intensity. This is a single-session study in generally healthy individuals, and there is a need for additional data to further inform research and clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Brain Stimulation
125 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.4%
2
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.4%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
5.7%
5
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.6%
6
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
8
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.8%
9
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
11
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
12
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
13
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
14
The Cerebellum
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
15
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
16
Neuroscience Letters
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
17
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
European Journal of Pain
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
19
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
20
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
22
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Brain Research
38 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
24
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
25
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
Data in Brief
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.6%
27
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
28
Neuroscience
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%