Home Current Issue Previous Issues Published Ahead-of-Print For Authors Journal Info
Skip Navigation LinksHome > January 2013 - Volume 26 - Issue 1 > The expanding evidence base for rTMS treatment of depression
Current Opinion in Psychiatry:
doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e32835ab46d
MOOD AND ANXIETY DISORDERS: Edited by Cornelius Katona and Gordon Parker

The expanding evidence base for rTMS treatment of depression

George, Mark S.; Taylor, Joseph J.; Short, E. Baron

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Psychiatry Department, Brain Stimulation Laboratory, Medical University of South Carolina, and Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, USA

Correspondence to Mark S. George, MD, 502 North, IOP, Psychiatry Department, 67 President St, MUSC, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. Tel: +1 843 876 5142; fax: +1843 792 5702; e-mail: georgem@musc.edu

Collapse Box


Purpose of review: Daily left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for several weeks was first proposed as an acute treatment for depression in the early 1990s, and was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2008. In the past year, several important studies have been published that extend our understanding of this novel treatment approach.

Recent findings: The first round of multisite clinical trials with TMS addressed whether prefrontal rTMS has efficacy and were conducted in carefully selected depressed patients who were antidepressant medication free. Several more recent studies assess the clinical effectiveness of TMS and report that about 35–40% of real-world patients who are commonly taking adjunctive antidepressants reach remission with a modest side effect profile. There are also new studies examining the durability of the TMS-induced antidepressant effect. Fifty-eight percent of TMS remitters remain remitted at 3-month follow-up.

Summary: These recent studies suggest that daily left prefrontal TMS over several weeks as a treatment for depression not only appears to have efficacy in rigorous randomized controlled trials, but is effective in real-world settings, with remission in 30–40% of patients. The TMS antidepressant effect, once achieved, appears to be as durable as with other antidepressant medications or interventions. Much more research is needed, particularly with issues such as the TMS coil location, stimulation intensity and frequency, and dosing strategy.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is perhaps the most popular of the new brain stimulation techniques because its clinical effects are produced without the need for a craniotomy [as with deep brain stimulation (DBS)] or seizure induction [as with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)]. As a focal, noninvasive form of brain stimulation, TMS produces limited side effects and can be used as either a therapy or a research tool (e.g., to measure how excitable the brain is or to produce a temporary lesion) [1–3].

TMS uses an electromagnetic coil on the scalp to create an extremely potent (near 1.5 T) but brief (μs) magnetic field. This magnetic field enters the surface of the brain without interference from the skin, muscle, and bone. In the brain, the magnetic pulse encounters nerve cells and induces electrical current to flow. Thus, the magnetic field created from electrical energy in the coil passes through the skull and is converted back into electrical energy in the brain [4]. It is for this reason that TMS is sometimes called ‘electrodeless electrical stimulation’.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Brief history

The idea of using TMS, or something akin to it, to alter neural function goes back to at least the early 1900s. In 1902 Pollacsek and Beer, psychiatrists working down the street from Sigmund Freud in Vienna, filed a patent to treat depression and neuroses with an electromagnetic device that looks surprisingly like today's TMS machines [5]. The modern TMS era began in 1985 when Barker et al.[6,7], working in Sheffield, England, created a focal electromagnetic device with sufficient power to induce currents in the spine. They quickly realized that their device could also directly and noninvasively stimulate the human brain, launching the modern TMS era.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Seizure risk
Box 1
Box 1
Image Tools

Repetitive TMS or rTMS can create behaviors not seen with single pulses, including the potential risk of causing an unintended seizure. Worldwide, out of the 300 000 or more treatment or research sessions in the history of TMS, approximately 20 seizures have occurred [8]. In the United States, since market introduction of the NeuroStar TMS Therapy system in October 2008, seven seizures have been reported out of 250 000 NeuroStar TMS treatment sessions in over 8000 patients. In five of the seven seizures, patients had concurrent use of medications that may have altered seizure threshold. The estimated risk of seizure under ordinary clinical use is approximately one in 30 000 treatments (0.003% of treatments) or one in 1000 patients (0.1% of patients) (M. Demitrack, Neuronetics, personal communication). This risk is less than or comparable to the risk of seizure associated with antidepressant medications [9,10]. All TMS seizures have occurred during stimulation, rather than later, and have been self-limited with no sequelae. rTMS seizures are more likely to occur with certain combinations of TMS intensity, frequency, duration and interstimulus interval [11,12].

Back to Top | Article Outline


In 2008, the NeuroStar TMS Therapy system (Neuronetics, Inc., Malvern, PA, USA) received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance for the treatment of adult patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) who have failed to receive satisfactory improvement from one prior antidepressant medication at or above the minimal effective dose and duration in the current episode. FDA clearance was based on a large, multisite, sham-controlled randomized study that showed that daily prefrontal TMS was a well-tolerated and effective treatment for certain patients with major depression. The observed effect sizes in both the original study population (N = 301, [13]) and in the subset of patients who met the FDA approved indication for use of the NeuroStar TMS Therapy system (N = 164, [14]) are of similar or greater magnitude than those observed with the majority of currently approved antidepressant medication treatments.

George et al. in a 190 patient National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored multisite, randomized controlled trial [called optimised TMS (OPT-TMS)] demonstrated that rTMS, as drug-free monotherapy, produced statistically significant antidepressant effects with a remission rate four times that of sham patients [15]. This study provided industry-independent class I evidence of safety and efficacy in a well-studied and carefully controlled cohort. Recently, two additional publications resulted from this trial. McDonald et al.[16▪] reported on an open-label extension phase. They found that 43 of 141 (30.5%) patients who enrolled in the open-phase study eventually met criteria for remission. Some patients took up to 6 weeks to fully remit [16▪]. Most recently Mantovani [17▪] reported on the 3-month durability of the TMS antidepressant response in this trial. Of the 50 patients who remitted and agreed to participate in follow-up, at 3 months, 29 of 50 (58%) were classified as in remission [Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS)-24 ≤ 10], two of 50 (4%) as partial responders (30% ≤ HDRS-24 reduction <50% from baseline), and one of 50 (2%) met criteria for relapse [17▪].

Several other recent studies describe the effectiveness of TMS in modern clinical practice. The first was a multisite observational study in 307 real-world patients receiving Neurostar TMS in clinical practice settings [18▪▪]. With an acute course of TMS treatments [average 28.3 (SD: 10.1) treatment sessions], symptom severity ratings decreased significantly. With categorical outcomes, 58% of the participants were responders of the primary outcome measure [clinical global impression-subject (CGI-S)], and 37% had reached remission, with similar findings on the secondary measures. Given that over half of the participants met criteria for resistance to two or more antidepressant trials in the current episode, outcomes were stratified by level of treatment resistance (<2 vs. ≥2 treatment failures); response and remission rates were similar between groups (e.g., 59.4 vs. 56.8% response for low vs. high levels of resistance; 39.9 vs. 34.9% remission rates).

Connolly et al.[19▪] reported data from the first 100 patients treated at their university-based TMS clinical service following FDA approval. Their cohort was also treatment resistant, with a mean of 3.4 failed adequate antidepressant trials in the current episode. Thirty-one individuals had received prior lifetime ECT, and 60% had a history of psychiatric hospitalization. The clinical global impression-investigator response rate was 50.6% and the remission rate was 24.7% at 6 weeks. The HDRS response and remission rates were 41.2 and 35.3%, respectively. Forty-two patients (49%) entered 6 months of maintenance TMS treatment. Sixty-two percent (26/42 patients) maintained their responder status at the last assessment during the maintenance treatment. These data from care-seeking patients suggest that TMS, unlike many therapies in medicine, does not suffer from an efficacy/effectiveness gap between clinical trials and clinical treatments.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Clinically relevant research

Much research is underway to determine exactly which neurons TMS affects and to elucidate the cascade of neurobiological events that follow stimulation. We do know that factors like gyral anatomy, brain atrophy and nerve fiber orientation relative to coil all impact how TMS affects neurophysiology.

Single nerve cells form themselves into functioning circuits over time through repeated discharges. Externally stimulating a nerve cell with low or high frequency electrical stimulation can cause long-term depression (LTD) or long-term potentiation (LTP), respectively. These phenomena are thought to be involved in learning, memory, and dynamic changes in neuronal networks. A very exciting aspect of TMS research is whether noninvasive stimulation can change brain circuits over time in a manner analogous to LTD or LTP. Many studies have shown that TMS can inhibit or potentiate motor-evoked potentials for several hours beyond the time of stimulation [20–22]. The clinical implications of such TMS-induced neuroplasticity are profound. If functional imaging can be used to identify faulty brain networks, then TMS or other techniques might be useful for resculpting them. Recent research indicates that TMS can induce neurogenesis [23–25]. Some basic physiological studies also suggest that neuroplastic changes are more robust when the cells being stimulated are acting as a circuit [26–28]. These findings raise the possibility that TMS could be combined with cognitive-behavioral or physical therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Home transcranial magnetic stimulation?

Exciting research at the cellular level has revealed that, when bundles of neurons fire in the same direction, the electricity flowing through them creates a magnetic field as Maxwell's equations would suggest. This brain-generated magnetic field can synchronize neuronal firing and is called ephaptic coupling [29,30]. Studies in cell cultures and nonhuman animals have shown that weak electrical or magnetic fields produced by the brain itself can entrain neurons in widespread cortical areas. This finding opens up the possibility of influencing this meta-electrical field with ‘weak’ TMS. One company has created such an oscillatng weak TMS device, with positive studies in small trials of schizophrenia and depression [31,32]. This device (Neosync) is currently being tested in a multisite pivotal study. If successful, this device might enable home delivery of TMS (under a doctor's prescription) because it would likely not be able to cause a seizure.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Combining transcranial magnetic stimulation with functional imaging

A critically important technique that might ultimately guide clinical parameters is the use of functional imaging to directly monitor TMS effects on the brain. Since different frequencies of TMS produce divergent effects on brain activity, combining TMS with functional brain imaging will better delineate not only the behavioral neuropsychology of various psychiatric syndromes, but also some of the underlying pathophysiologic brain circuits. In contrast to imaging studies with ECT, which have found that ECT shuts off global and regional activity following the seizure [33], most studies using serial scans in depressed patients undergoing TMS have found increased activity in the cingulate and other limbic regions [34,35].

When a neuron fires or discharges, different neurotransmitters are released in the synaptic cleft. Thus, brain stimulation methods are in one view simply ‘focal pharmacology’. This link between brain stimulation and traditional pharmacological views of psychiatric illnesses has been highlighted by studies using radioligands. Baeken and colleagues examined the neurobiologic impact of 10 rTMS sessions applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on postsynaptic 5-HT(2A) receptor binding indices measured with (1)(2)(3)I-5-I-R91150 single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Compared with controls, patients displayed significantly less bilateral DLPFC and significantly higher left hippocampal baseline 5-HT(2A) receptor binding. Successful rTMS treatment correlated positively with 5-HT(2A) receptor binding in the DLPFC bilaterally and correlated negatively with right hippocampal 5-HT(2A) receptor uptake values. Strafella et al.[36] used PET to show that prefrontal cortex TMS causes dopamine release in the caudate nucleus and has reciprocal activity with the anterior cingulate gyrus [37].

Work with interleaved TMS/functional MRI has shown that prefrontal TMS at 80% motor threshold produces much less local and remote blood flow change than does 120% motor threshold TMS [38]. Our group at Medical University of South Carolina [39], as well as others in Scotland [35] and Australia [40], has shown that lateral prefrontal TMS can alter the function of the anterior cingulate gyrus and other limbic regions in depressed patients. Changing the site of prefrontal stimulation (lateral vs. medial) produces different secondary activations. The effects of TMS also differ as a function of mood, cortical excitability, and other factors that alter resting brain activity [41,42]. These results highlight the notion that cortical TMS is ‘opening a window’ to different cortical–subcortical networks.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Where is depression in the brain?

Although more work is needed, certain brain regions have been consistently implicated in the pathogenesis of depression and mood regulation [43–50]. These include the medial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the cingulate gyrus, and other regions commonly referred to as limbic (amygdala, hippocampus, parahippocampus, septum, hypothalamus, limbic thalamus, insula) and paralimbic (anterior temporal pole, orbitofrontal cortex). A widely held theory over the last 20 years has been that depression results from a dysregulation of these prefrontal and limbic regions [47,50–52]. In 1995, George and colleagues performed the first open trial of daily prefrontal TMS as an antidepressant [53], followed immediately by a cross-over double-blind study [54]. The reasoning was that chronic, frequent, sub-convulsive stimulation of the prefrontal cortex might initiate a therapeutic cascade of events that rebalances and normalizes the dysregulated prefrontal and limbic circuitry [55]. The imaging evidence previously discussed now shows that this hunch was largely correct. Thus, modern TMS was specifically designed as a focal, nonconvulsive, circuit-based approach to therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Unresolved issues

There are many unresolved issues with TMS therapy for depression. One issue is finding the best target to enhance the antidepressant effects of TMS. Moreover, it is also important to determine if this region can be found with a group algorithm or if individual imaging guidance improves results. Positioning of the TMS coil is typically based on an algorithm that researchers (including MSG) developed in early studies [53]. However, this method was shown to be imprecise, depending largely on the subject's head size [56].

Another issue is determining the optimal dose over the optimal time period for alleviating depression. Most studies have stimulated patients at or above motor threshold. This is particularly important in elderly patients, in whom prefrontal atrophy may outpace motor cortex atrophy [57–60]. There have never been dose-finding studies with rTMS. Thus, some groups are studying whether higher doses of TMS might produce more rapid or more effective results [61]. Also, there are a few case series suggesting that weekly or monthly rTMS can serve as maintenance therapy for acute responders [62–64].

One interesting development with TMS is different coil designs [65▪,66]. Most studies use a figure eight coil, which is quite focal in terms of the field created in the brain [67]. Zangen and colleagues in Israel have designed a series of TMS coils that penetrate more deeply and broadly into the brain than do traditional coils [68,69]. A company now manufactures these coils (Brainsway). A multisite clinical antidepressant trial using such a coil showed positive results compared with sham. The FDA is currently reviewing these results for potential approval to market this coil for treating depression.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for other psychiatric conditions

TMS has also been investigated as a possible treatment for a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders. The literature in these conditions is much less extensive than for TMS as an antidepressant, and therefore conclusions about the clinical significance of effects must remain tentative until large sample studies are conducted.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Transcranial magnetic stimulation and pain

Mood-regulating centers in the brain overlap significantly with the neural pathways involved in pain regulation, especially the regions involved in determining whether a pain is really bothersome. Thus, researchers are exploring whether TMS might have a therapeutic role in treating acute, chronic or perioperative pain. There are exciting reports that TMS over prefrontal cortex or motor cortex acutely decreases pain in healthy adults or patients with chronic pain [70–75,76▪▪]. A recent randomized controlled trial found that a single 20-min session of left prefrontal rTMS given to patients in the recovery room following surgery reduced self-administered morphine by 40% [77]. In the lab, a 20-min dose of prefrontal TMS can also increase pain thresholds. This effect is blocked in healthy volunteers by pretreatment with naloxone, suggesting that opiate receptors play a necessary role in the anti-nociceptive effects of TMS [78▪,79].

Back to Top | Article Outline


Overall, TMS is a promising new therapy and a powerful research tool. The body of TMS literature suggests that daily left prefrontal TMS for 3–6 weeks has antidepressant effects that are significantly greater than sham, and that these effects in open-label studies are clinically meaningful (30% remission), with low side effects and no drug–drug interactions. The remission outcomes are at least as robust as next choice antidepressant medication. Since FDA approval TMS has been generally safe and well tolerated with a low incidence of treatment discontinuation, and the therapeutic effects once obtained appear at least as durable as other antidepressant treatments. TMS also shows promise in several other psychiatric disorders, particularly treating acute and chronic pain.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors’ work with brain stimulation treatments has been supported over the past 5 years in part by research grants from NIH, DOD, VA, and NARSAD. The BSL has also received grant funding from Brainsway, Cervel (Neostim), Neosync, Neuronetics, Neuropace, MECTA and St Jude.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Conflicts of interest

Dr George is a nonpaid consultant to several TMS companies (Brainsway, Cervel, Neosync, Neuronetics). Dr George serves or has served as a paid consultant to several non-TMS device and pharmaceutical companies. He owns no equity in any device or pharmaceutical company.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

▪ of special interest

▪▪ of outstanding interest

Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current World Literature section in this issue (p. 125).

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. George MS, Belmaker RH. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropsychiatry. 1st ed. In: George MS, Belmaker RH, editors. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropsychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000.

2. George MS, Nahas Z, Kozel FA, et al. Mechanisms and state of the art of transcranial magnetic stimulation. J ECT 2002; 8:170–181.

3. George MS. Advances in brain stimulation: guest editorial. J ECT 2002; 8:169.

4. Bohning DE. George MS, Belmaker RH. Introduction and overview of TMS physics. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropsychiatry. Washington, DC:American Psychiatric Press; 2000. 13–44.

5. Beer B. On the occurrence of an objective light sensation in a magnetic field (in German). Klinische Wochenzeitschrift 1902; 15:108–109.

6. Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL. Noninvasive magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Lancet 1985; 1:1106–1107.

7. Barker AT, Freeston IL, Jalinous R, Jarratt JA. Magnetic stimulation of the human brain and peripheral nervous system: an introduction and the results of an initial clinical evaluation. Neurosurgery 1987; 20:100–109.

8. Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120:2008–2039.

9. Pisani F, Oteri G, Costa C, et al. Effects of psychotropic drugs on seizure threshold. Drug Saf 2002; 25:91–110.

10. Alper K, Schwartz KA, Kolts RL, Khan A. Seizure incidence in psychopharmacological clinical trials: an analysis of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) summary basis of approval reports. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62:345–354.

11. Wassermann EM, Cohen LG, Flitman SS, et al. Seizures in healthy people with repeated safe trains of transcranial magnetic stimuli. Lancet 1996; 347:825–826.

12. Wassermann EM. Report on risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on Risk and Safety of rTMS (June 1996). Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 108:1–16.

13. O’Reardon JP, Solvason HB, Janicak PG, et al. Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62:1208–1216.

14. Demitrack MA, Thase ME. Clinical significance of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant depression: synthesis of recent data. Psychopharmacol Bull 2009; 42:5–38.

15. George MS, Lisanby SH, Avery D, et al. Daily left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for major depressive disorder: a sham-controlled randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010; 67:507–516.

16▪. McDonald WM, Durkalski V, Ball ER, et al. Improving the antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation: maximizing the number of stimulations and treatment location in treatment-resistant depression. Depress Anxiety 2011; 28:973–980.

This open-label extension of the landmark OPT-TMS randomized trial showed that about 30% of patients remit, but that in many this can take up to 6 weeks of therapy.

17▪. Mantovani A, Pavlicova M, Avery D, et al. Long-term efficacy of repeated daily prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in treatment-resistant depression. Depress Anxiety 2012; 29:883–890.

This is one of the few studies examining the durability of the antidepressant response achieved by TMS. Although this follow-up was not the main aim of the OPT-TMS trial, the effects appear durable, at least at 3 and 6 months.

18▪▪. Carpenter LL, Janicak PG, Aaronson ST, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for major depression: a multisite, naturalistic, observational study of acute treatment outcomes in clinical practice. Depress Anxiety 2012; 29:587–596.

This is a large industry-sponsored post market approval study of TMS in general psychiatric practice. The results showed good efficacy with few side effects and low dropouts. Daily prefrontal TMS for treating acute depression appears to have true clinical effectiveness as well as efficacy in controlled trials. Of note, many of these patients had TMS delivered as an adjunct to taking antidepressant medications, without additional side effects or harm.

19▪. Connolly RK, Helmer A, Cristancho MA, et al. Effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice post-FDA approval in the United States: results observed with the first 100 consecutive cases of depression at an academic medical center. J Clin Psychiatry 2012; 73:e567–e573.

This is another effectiveness study for a clinic in Philadelphia, again showing effectiveness as an adjunctive treatment to antidepressant medications.

20. Pal PK, Hanajima R, Gunraj CA, et al. Effect of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on interhemispheric inhibition. J Neurophysiol 2005; 94:1668–1675.

21. Wassermann EM, Wedegaertner FR, Ziemann U, et al. Crossed reduction of human motor cortex excitability by 1-hz transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurosci Lett 1998; 250:141–144.

22. Di Lazzaro V, Pilato F, Saturno E, et al. Theta-burst repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation suppresses specific excitatory circuits in the human motor cortex. J Physiol 2005; 565 (Pt 3):945–950.

23. Jennum P, Klitgaard H. Effect of acute and chronic stimulations on pentylenetetrazole-induced clonic seizures. Epilepsy Res 1996; 23:115–122.

24. Pope A, Keck ME. TMS as a therapeutic tool in psychiatry: what do we know about neurobiological mechanisms? J Psychiatr Res 2001; 35:193–215.

25. Weissman JD, Epstein CM, Davey KR. Magnetic brain stimulation and brain size: relevance to animal studies. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992; 85:215–219.

26. Barnes CA, Jung MW, McNaughton BL, et al. LTP saturation and spatial learning disruption: effects of task variables and saturation levels. J Neurosci 1994; 14:5793–5806.

27. Bartsch AP, van Hemmen JL. Combined Hebbian development of geniculocortical and lateral connectivity in a model of primary visual cortex. Biol Cybern 2001; 84:41–55.

28. Stanton PK, Sejnowsky TJ. Associative long-term depression in the hippocampus induced by hebbian covariance. Nature 1989; 339:215–218.

29. Frohlich F, McCormick DA. Endogenous electric fields may guide neocortical network activity. Neuron 2010; 67:129–143.

30. Anastassiou CA, Perin R, Markram H, Koch C. Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons. Nat Neurosci 2011; 14:217–223.

31. Jin Y, Kemp AS, Huang Y, et al. Alpha EEG guided TMS in schizophrenia. Brain Stimul 2011; 5:560–568.

32. Jin Y, Potkin SG, Kemp AS, et al. Therapeutic effects of individualized alpha frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation ({alpha}TMS) on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bull 2006; 32:556–561.

33. Nobler MS, Oquendo MA, Kegeles LS, et al. Decreased regional brain metabolism after ECT. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158:305–308.

34. Teneback CC, Nahas Z, Speer AM, et al. Two weeks of daily left prefrontal rTMS changes prefrontal cortex and paralimbic activity in depression. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1999; 11:426–435.

35. Shajahan PM, Glabus MF, Steele JD, et al. Left dorso-lateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation affects cortical excitability and functional connectivity, but does not impair cognition in major depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2002; 26:945–954.

36. Strafella AP, Paus T, Fraraccio M, Dagher A. Striatal dopamine release induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain 2003; 126:2609–2615.

37. Paus T, Castro-Alamancos MA, Petrides M. Cortico-cortical connectivity of the human mid-dorsolateral frontal cortex and its modulation by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Eur J Neurosci 2001; 14:1405–1411.

38. Nahas Z, Lomarev M, Roberts DR, et al. Unilateral left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) produces intensity-dependent bilateral effects as measured by interleaved BOLD fMRI. Biol Psychiatry 2001; 50:712–720.

39. George MS, Stallings LE, Speer AM, et al. Prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) changes relative perfusion locally and remotely. Human Psychopharmacol 1999; 14:161–170.

40. Mitchel P. 15 Hz and 1 Hz TMS have different acute effects on cerebral blood flow in depressed patients. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2002; 5:S7–S.08.2.

41. George MS, Bohning DE. Desimone B. Measuring brain connectivity with functional imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Neuropsychopharmacology, fifth generation of progress. New York:Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2002. 393–410.

42. Paus T, Jech R, Thompson CJ, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation during positron emission tomography: a new method for studying connectivity of the human cerebral cortex. J Neuroscience 1997; 17:3178–3184.

43. George MS, Huggins T, McDermut W, et al. Abnormal facial emotion recognition in depression: serial testing in an ultra-rapid-cycling patient. Behav Modif 1998; 22:192–204.

44. George MS. An introduction to the emerging neuroanatomy of depression. Psychiatric Ann 1994; 24:635–636.

45. George MS, Ketter TA, Parekh PI, et al. Regional brain activity when selecting a response despite interference: an H215O PET study of the stroop and an emotional stroop. Hum Brain Mapp 1994; 1:194–209.

46. George MS, Ketter TA, Parekh PI, et al. Brain activity during transient sadness and happiness in healthy women. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152:341–351.

47. George MS, Ketter TA, Post RM. Panksepp J. What functional imaging studies have revealed about the brain basis of mood and emotion. Advances in biological psychiatry. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press; 1996. 63–113.

48. George MS, Ketter TA, Parekh PI, et al. Blunted left cingulate activation in mood disorder subjects during a response interference task (The Stroop). J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1997; 9:55–63.

49. Ketter TA, Andreason PJ, George MS, et al. Anterior paralimbic mediation of procaine-induced emotional and psychosensory experiences. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53:59–69.

50. George MS, Ketter TA, Post RM. Prefrontal cortex dysfunction in clinical depression. Depression 1994; 2:59–72.

51. George MS, Post RM, Ketter TA, Kimbrell TA. Rush AJ. Neural mechanisms of mood disorders. Current review of mood disorders. Philadelphia:Current Medicine; 1995. 1–21.

52. Mayberg HS, Liotti M, Brannan SK, et al. Reciprocal limbic-cortical function and negative mood: converging PET findings in depression and normal sadness. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156:675–682.

53. George MS, Wassermann EM, Williams WA, et al. Daily repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves mood in depression. Neuro Rep 1995; 6:1853–1856.

54. George MS, Wassermann EM, Williams WE, et al. Mood improvements following daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression: a placebo-controlled crossover trial. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154:1752–1756.

55. George MS, Wassermann EM. Rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and ECT. Convulsive Ther 1994; 10:251–253.

56. Herwig U, Padberg F, Unger J, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in therapy studies: examination of the reliability of ‘standard’ coil positioning by neuronavigation. Biol Psychiatry 2001; 50:58–61.

57. McConnell KA, Nahas Z, Shastri A, et al. The transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold depends on the distance from coil to underlying cortex: a replication in healthy adults comparing two methods of assessing the distance to cortex. Biol Psychiatry 2001; 49:454–459.

58. Mosimann UP, Marre SC, Werlen S, et al. Antidepressant effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the elderly: correlation between effect size and coil-cortex distance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59:560–561.

59. Padberg F, Zwanzger P, Keck ME, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in major depression: relation between efficacy and stimulation intensity. Neuropsychopharmacology 2002; 27:638–645.

60. Kozel FA, Nahas Z, DeBrux C, et al. How the distance from coil to cortex relates to age, motor threshold and possibly the antidepressant response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2000; 12:376–384.

61. Holtzheimer PE 3rd, McDonald WM, Mufti M, et al. Accelerated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Depress Anxiety 2010; 27:960–963.

62. Nahas Z, Oliver NC, Johnson M, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of left prefrontal rTMS as a maintenance antidepressant [abstract]. Biol Psychiatry 2000:57–59.

63. Li X, Nahas Z, Anderson B, et al. Can left prefrontal rTMS be used as a maintenance treatment for bipolar depression? Depress Anxiety 2004; 20:98–100.

64. O’Reardon JP, Blumner KH, Peshek AD, et al. Long-term maintenance therapy for major depressive disorder with rTMS. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66:1524–1528.

65▪. Deng ZD, Lisanby SH, Peterchev AV. Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: Simulation comparison of 50 coil designs. Brain Stimul 2012. [Epub ahead of print]

This is a most interesting and comprehensive analysis of whether it will ever be possible to deliver TMS both deeply in the brain and focally. They conclude that there is a depth–focality tradeoff. If TMS needs to reach deep structures directly (e.g. the amygdala) it cannot do it focally without also stimulating other brain regions.

66. Huang Y, Sommer M, Thickbroom GW, et al. Consensus: new methodologies for brain stimulation. Brain Stimulation 2009; 2:2–13.

67. Roth BJ, Cohen LG, Hallett M. The electric field induced during magnetic stimulation. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol – Suppl 1991; 43:268–278.

68. Roth Y, Zangen A, Voller B, Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain regions: evidence for efficacy of the H-coil. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116:775–779.

69. Roth Y, Zangen A, Hallett M. A coil design for transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain regions. J Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 19:361–370.

70. Andre-Obadia N, Peyron R, Mertens P, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain control. Double-blind study of different frequencies against placebo, and correlation with motor cortex stimulation efficacy. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117:1536–1544.

71. Lefaucheur JP. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the management of pain. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 57:737–748.

72. Rollnik JD, Wustefeld S, Dauper J, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a pilot study. Eur Neurol 2002; 48:6–10.

73. Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Nguyen JP. Interventional neurophysiology for pain control: duration of pain relief following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin 2001; 31:247–252.

74. Pridmore S, Oberoi G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation applications and potential use in chronic pain: studies in waiting. J Neurol Sci 2000; 182:1–4.

75. Johnson S, Summers J, Pridmore S. Changes to somatosensory detection and pain thresholds following high frequency repetitive TMS of the motor cortex in individuals suffering from chronic pain. Pain 2006; 123:187–192.

76▪▪. Short EB, Borckardt JJ, Anderson BS, et al. Ten sessions of adjunctive left prefrontal rTMS significantly reduces fibromyalgia pain: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Pain 2011; 152:2477–2484.

This is a promising small study showing that prefrontal TMS can help reduce fibromyalgia symptoms.

77. Borckardt JJ, Weinstein M, Reeves ST, et al. Post-operative left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) reduces patient-controlled analgesia use. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:557–562.

78▪. Taylor JJ, Borckardt JJ, George MS. Endogenous opioids mediate left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex rTMS-induced analgesia. Pain 2012; 153:1219–1225.

This research study shows that for prefrontal TMS to help reduce laboratory induced pain, it must involve the opiate system. It is not clear whether and how this links to the TMS antidepressant effects.

79. Li X, Large CH, Ricci R, et al. Using interleaved transcranial magnetic stimulation/functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and dynamic causal modeling to understand the discrete circuit specific changes of medications: lamotrigine and valproic acid changes in motor or prefrontal effective connectivity. Psychiatry Res 2011; 194:141–148.


depression; magnetic; stimulation; transcranial magnetic stimulation; transcranial; treatment

© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.


Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.