Reliability of targeting methods in TMS for depression: Beam F3 vs. 5.5 cm | Zendy

Nicholas T. Trapp | Zendy; Joel Bruss | Zendy; Marcie King Johnson | Zendy; Brandt D. Uitermarkt | Zendy; Laren Garrett | Zendy; Amanda Heinzerling | Zendy; Chaorong Wu | Zendy; Timothy R. Koscik | Zendy; Patrick Ten Eyck | Zendy; Aaron D. Boes | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Reliability of targeting methods in TMS for depression: Beam F3 vs. 5.5 cm

Author(s) -

Nicholas T. Trapp,

Joel Bruss,

Marcie King Johnson,

Brandt D. Uitermarkt,

Laren Garrett,

Amanda Heinzerling,

Chaorong Wu,

Timothy R. Koscik,

Patrick Ten Eyck,

Aaron D. Boes

Publication year - 2020

Publication title -

brain stimulation

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 2.685

H-Index - 81

eISSN - 1935-861X

pISSN - 1876-4754

DOI - 10.1016/j.brs.2020.01.010

Subject(s) - reliability (semiconductor) , depression (economics) , reliability engineering , psychology , physics , engineering , economics , power (physics) , quantum mechanics , macroeconomics

No consensus exists in the clinical transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) field as to the best method for targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for depression treatment. Two common targeting methods are the Beam F3 method and the 5.5 cm rule.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research