% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Nettekoven:902524,
      author       = {Nettekoven, Charlotte and Pieczewski, Julia and
                      Neuschmelting, Volker and Jonas, Kristina and Goldbrunner,
                      Roland and Grefkes, Christian and Weiss Lucas, Carolin},
      title        = {{I}mproving the efficacy and reliability of r{TMS} language
                      mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency},
      journal      = {Human brain mapping},
      volume       = {42},
      number       = {16},
      issn         = {1065-9471},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Liss},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-04333},
      pages        = {5309 - 5321},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {Repetitive TMS (rTMS) with a frequency of 5–10 Hz is
                      widely used for language mapping. However, it may be
                      accompanied by discomfort and is limited in the number and
                      reliability of evoked language errors. We, here,
                      systematically tested the influence of different stimulation
                      frequencies (i.e., 10, 30, and 50 Hz) on tolerability,
                      number, reliability, and cortical distribution of language
                      errors aiming at improved language mapping. 15 right-handed,
                      healthy subjects (m = 8, median age: 29 yrs) were
                      investigated in two sessions, separated by 2–5 days. In
                      each session, 10, 30, and 50 Hz rTMS were applied over the
                      left hemisphere in a randomized order during a picture
                      naming task. Overall, 30 Hz rTMS evoked significantly more
                      errors $(20 ± 12\%)$ compared to 50 Hz
                      $(12 ± 8\%;$ p <.01), whereas error rates were
                      comparable between 30/50 and 10 Hz $(18 ± 11\%).$
                      Across all conditions, a significantly higher error rate was
                      found in Session 1 $(19 ± 13\%)$ compared to Session 2
                      $(13 ± 7\%,$ p <.05). The error rate was poorly
                      reliable between sessions for 10 (intraclass correlation
                      coefficient, ICC = .315) and 30 Hz (ICC = .427), whereas
                      50 Hz showed a moderate reliability (ICC = .597). Spatial
                      reliability of language errors was low to moderate with a
                      tendency toward increased reliability for higher
                      frequencies, for example, within frontal regions. Compared
                      to 10 Hz, both, 30 and 50 Hz were rated as less painful.
                      Taken together, our data favor the use of rTMS-protocols
                      employing higher frequencies for evoking language errors
                      reliably and with reduced discomfort, depending on the
                      region of interest.},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:34387388},
      UT           = {WOS:000684567000001},
      doi          = {10.1002/hbm.25619},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/902524},
}