A new angle on transcranial magnetic stimulation coil orientation: A targeted narrative review.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used to treat several neuropsychiatric disorders including depression, where it is effective in approximately half of patients for whom pharmacological approaches have failed. Treatment response is related to stimulation parameters such as the stimulation frequency, pattern, intensity, location, total number of pulses and sessions applied, as well as target brain network engagement. One critical but underexplored component of the stimulation procedure is the orientation or yaw angle of the commonly used figure-of-eight TMS coil, which is known to impact neuronal response to TMS. However, coil orientation has remained largely unchanged since TMS was first used to treat depression and continues to be based on motor cortex anatomy which may not be optimal for the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex treatment site. This targeted narrative review evaluates experimental, clinical, and computational evidence indicating that optimizing coil orientation may potentially improve TMS treatment outcomes. The properties of the electric field induced by TMS, the changes to this field caused by the differing conductivities of head tissues, and the interaction between coil orientation and the underlying cortical anatomy are summarized. We describe evidence that the magnitude and site of cortical activation, surrogate markers of TMS dosing and brain network targeting considered central in clinical response to TMS, are influenced by coil orientation. We suggest that coil orientation should be considered when applying therapeutic TMS and propose several approaches to optimizing this potentially important treatment parameter.

A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) enhances cognition in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) rTMS protocols are promising as they substantially reduce burden by shortening the treatment course, but the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of iTBS have not been established in MCI. METHODS: 24 older adults with amnestic MCI (aMCI) due to possible Alzheimer's disease enrolled in a phase I trial of open-label accelerated iTBS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (8 stimulation sessions of 600 pulses of iTBS/day for 3 days). Participants rated common side effects during and after each session and retrospectively (at post-treatment and 4-week follow-up). They completed brain MRI (for safety assessments and electric field modeling), neuropsychiatric evaluations, and neuropsychological testing before and after treatment; a subset of measures was administered at follow-up. RESULTS: Retention was high (95%) and there were no adverse neuroradiological, neuropsychiatric, or neurocognitive effects of treatment. Participants reported high acceptability, minimal side effects, and low desire to quit despite some rating the treatment as tiring. Electric field modeling data suggest that all participants received safe and therapeutic cortical stimulation intensities. We observed a significant, large effect size (d=0.98) improvement in fluid cognition using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery from pre-treatment to post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of accelerated iTBS in aMCI. In addition, we provide evidence of target engagement in the form of improved cognition following treatment. These promising results directly inform future trials aimed at optimizing treatment parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04503096.

Differences in scalp-to-cortex tissues across age groups, sexes and brain regions: Implications for neuroimaging and brain stimulation techniques.

Aging affects the scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD) and the comprising tissues. This is crucial for noninvasive neuroimaging and brain stimulation modalities as they rely on traversing from the scalp to the cortex or vice versa. The specific relationship between aging and these tissues has not been comprehensively investigated. We conducted a study on 250 younger and older adults to examine age-related differences in SCD and its constituent tissues. We identified region-specific differences in tissue thicknesses related to age and sex. Older adults exhibit larger SCD in the frontocentral regions compared to younger adults. Men exhibit greater SCD in the inferior scalp regions, while women show similar-to-greater SCD values in regions closer to the vertex compared to men. Younger adults and men have thicker soft tissue layers, whereas women and older adults exhibit thicker compact bone layers. CSF is considerably thicker in older adults, particularly in men. These findings emphasize the need to consider age, sex, and regional differences when interpreting SCD and its implications for noninvasive neuroimaging and brain stimulation.

Reduced executive and reward connectivity is associated with smoking cessation response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can reduce cue-elicited craving, decrease cigarette consumption, and increase the abstinence rate in tobacco use disorders (TUDs). We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the effect of 10 sessions of rTMS on cortical activity and neural networks in treatment-seeking smokers. Smoking cue exposure fMRI scans were acquired before and after the 10 sessions of active or sham rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses per session) to the left dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in 42 treatment-seeking smokers (≥ 10 cigarettes per day). Brain activity and functional connectivity were compared before and after 10 sessions of rTMS. Ten sessions of rTMS significantly reduced the number of cigarettes consumed per day (62.93%) compared to sham treatment (39.43%) at the end of treatment (p = 0.027). fMRI results showed that the rTMS treatment increased brain activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and DLPFC, but decreased brain activity in the bilateral medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC). The lower strength of dACC and mOFC connectivity was associated with quitting smoking (Wald score = 5.00, p = 0.025). The reduction of cigarette consumption significantly correlated with the increased brain activation in the dACC (r = 0.76, p = 0.0001). By increasing the brain activity in the dACC and prefrontal cortex and decreasing brain activity in the mOFC, 10 sessions of rTMS significantly reduced cigarette consumption and increased quit rate. Reduced drive-reward and executive control functional connectivity was associated with the smoking cessation effect from rTMS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02401672.

Template MRI scans reliably approximate individual and group-level tES and TMS electric fields induced in motor and prefrontal circuits.

Background: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a valuable method of elucidating the cortical target engagement from transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), but it is typically dependent on individual MRI scans. In this study, we systematically tested whether E-field models in template MNI-152 and Ernie scans can reliably approximate group-level E-fields induced in N = 195 individuals across 5 diagnoses (healthy, alcohol use disorder, tobacco use disorder, anxiety, depression). Methods: We computed 788 E-field models using the CHARM-SimNIBS 4.0.0 pipeline with 4 E-field models per participant (motor and prefrontal targets for TMS and tES). We additionally calculated permutation analyses to determine the point of stability of E-fields to assess whether the 152 brains represented in the MNI-152 template is sufficient. Results: Group-level E-fields did not significantly differ between the individual vs. MNI-152 template and Ernie scans for any stimulation modality or location (p > 0.05). However, TMS-induced E-field magnitudes significantly varied by diagnosis; individuals with generalized anxiety had significantly higher prefrontal and motor E-field magnitudes than healthy controls and those with alcohol use disorder and depression (p < 0.001). The point of stability for group-level E-field magnitudes ranged from 42 (motor tES) to 52 participants (prefrontal TMS). Conclusion: MNI-152 and Ernie models reliably estimate group-average TMS and tES-induced E-fields transdiagnostically. The MNI-152 template includes sufficient scans to control for interindividual anatomical differences (i.e., above the point of stability). Taken together, using the MNI-152 and Ernie brains to approximate group-level E-fields is a valid and reliable approach.

Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to estimate the amount of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) that reaches the cortex and to address the variable behavioral effects observed in the field. However, outcome measures used to quantify E-fields vary considerably and a thorough comparison is missing. OBJECTIVES: This two-part study aimed to examine the different outcome measures used to report on tES and TMS induced E-fields, including volume- and surface-level gray matter, region of interest (ROI), whole brain, geometrical, structural, and percentile-based approaches. The study aimed to guide future research in informed selection of appropriate outcome measures. METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies quantifying E-fields. The identified outcome measures were compared across volume- and surface-level E-field data in ten tES and TMS modalities targeting two common targets in 100 healthy individuals. RESULTS: In the systematic review, we extracted 308 outcome measures from 202 studies that adopted either a gray matter volume-level (n = 197) or surface-level (n = 111) approach. Volume-level results focused on E-field magnitude, while surface-level data encompassed E-field magnitude (n = 64) and normal/tangential E-field components (n = 47). E-fields were extracted in ROIs, such as brain structures and shapes (spheres, hexahedra and cylinders), or the whole brain. Percentiles or mean values were mostly used to quantify E-fields. Our modeling study, which involved 1,000 E-field models and > 1,000,000 extracted E-field values, revealed that different outcome measures yielded distinct E-field values, analyzed different brain regions, and did not always exhibit strong correlations in the same within-subject E-field model. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measure selection significantly impacts the locations and intensities of extracted E-field data in both tES and TMS E-field models. The suitability of different outcome measures depends on the target region, TMS/tES modality, individual anatomy, the analyzed E-field component and the research question. To enhance the quality, rigor, and reproducibility in the E-field modeling domain, we suggest standard reporting practices across studies and provide four recommendations.

From scalp to cortex, the whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts: introducing GetTissueThickness (GTT) to assess age and sex differences in tissue thicknesses.

Noninvasive techniques to record and stimulate the brain rely on passing through the tissues in between the scalp and cortex. Currently, there is no method to obtain detailed information about these scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD) tissues. We introduce GetTissueThickness (GTT), an open-source, automated approach to quantify SCD, and unveil how tissue thicknesses differ across age groups, sexes and brain regions (n = 250). We show that men have larger SCD in lower scalp regions and women have similar-to-larger SCD in regions closer to the vertex, with aging resulting in increased SCD in fronto-central regions. Soft tissue thickness varies by sex and age, with thicker layers and greater age-related decreases in men. Compact and spongy bone thickness also differ across sexes and age groups, with thicker compact bone in women in both age groups and an age-related thickening. Older men generally have the thickest cerebrospinal fluid layer and younger women and men having similar cerebrospinal fluid layers. Aging mostly results in grey matter thinning. Concerning SCD, the whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts. GTT enables rapid quantification of the SCD tissues. The distinctive sensitivity of noninvasive recording and stimulation modalities to different tissues underscores the relevance of GTT.

A Systematic Review and Large-Scale tES and TMS Electric Field Modeling Study Reveals How Outcome Measure Selection Alters Results in a Person- and Montage-Specific Manner.

Background: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to examine the cortical effects of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) and to address the high variability in efficacy observed in the literature. However, outcome measures used to report E-field magnitude vary considerably and have not yet been compared in detail. Objectives: The goal of this two-part study, encompassing a systematic review and modeling experiment, was to provide an overview of the different outcome measures used to report the magnitude of tES and TMS E-fields, and to conduct a direct comparison of these measures across different stimulation montages. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies reporting E-field magnitude. We extracted and discussed outcome measures in studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Additionally, outcome measures were compared via models of four common tES and two TMS modalities in 100 healthy younger adults. Results: In the systematic review, we included 118 studies using 151 outcome measures related to E-field magnitude. Structural and spherical regions of interest (ROI) analyses and percentile-based whole-brain analyses were used most often. In the modeling analyses, we found that there was an average of only 6% overlap between ROI and percentile-based whole-brain analyses in the investigated volumes within the same person. The overlap between ROI and whole-brain percentiles was montage- and person-specific, with more focal montages such as 4Ã-1 and APPS-tES, and figure-of-eight TMS showing up to 73%, 60%, and 52% overlap between ROI and percentile approaches respectively. However, even in these cases, 27% or more of the analyzed volume still differed between outcome measures in every analyses. Conclusions: The choice of outcome measures meaningfully alters the interpretation of tES and TMS E-field models. Well-considered outcome measure selection is imperative for accurate interpretation of results, valid between-study comparisons, and depends on stimulation focality and study goals. We formulated four recommendations to increase the quality and rigor of E-field modeling outcome measures. With these data and recommendations, we hope to guide future studies towards informed outcome measure selection, and improve the comparability of studies.

Optimized APPS-tDCS electrode position, size, and distance doubles the on-target stimulation magnitude in 3000 electric field models.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a widely used noninvasive brain stimulation technique with mixed results to date. A potential solution is to apply more efficient stimulation to ensure that each participant receives sufficient cortical activation. In this four-part study, we used electric field (E-field) modeling to systematically investigate the cortical effects of conventional and novel tDCS electrode montages, with the goal of creating a new easily adoptable form of tDCS that induces higher and more focal E-fields. We computed 3000 anatomically accurate, MRI-based E-field models using 2 mA tDCS to target the left primary motor cortex in 200 Human Connectome Project (HCP) participants and tested the effects of: 1. Novel Electrode Position, 2. Electrode Size, and 3. Inter-Electrode Distance on E-field magnitude and focality. In particular, we examined the effects of placing electrodes surrounding the corticomotor target in the anterior and posterior direction (anterior posterior pad surround tDCS; APPS-tDCS). We found that electrode position, electrode size, and inter-electrode distance all significantly impact the cortical E-field magnitude and focality of stimulation (all p < 0.0001). At the same 2 mA scalp stimulation intensity, APPS-tDCS with smaller than conventional 1 × 1 cm electrodes surrounding the neural target deliver more than double the on-target cortical E-field (APPS-tDCS: average of 0.55 V/m from 2 mA; M1-SO and bilateral M1: both 0.27 V/m from 2 mA) while stimulating only a fraction of the off-target brain regions; 2 mA optimized APPS-tDCS produces 4.08 mA-like cortical E-fields. In sum, this new optimized APPS-tDCS method produces much stronger cortical stimulation intensities at the same 2 mA scalp intensity. APPS-tDCS also more focally stimulates the cortex at the intended target, using simple EEG coordinate locations and without MRI scans. This APPS-tDCS method is adoptable to any existing, commercially available tDCS device and can be used to ensure sufficient cortical activation in each person. Future directions include testing whether APPS-tDCS produces larger and more consistent therapeutic tDCS effects.

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

BACKGROUND: Researchers and clinicians have traditionally relied on elastic caps with markings to reposition the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil between trains and sessions. Newer neuronavigation technology co-registers the patient's head and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, providing the researcher with real-time feedback about how to adjust the coil to be on-target. However, there has been no head to head comparison of accuracy and precision across treatment sessions. OBJECTIVE: /Hypothesis: In this two-part study, we compared elastic cap and neuronavigation targeting methodologies on distance, angle, and electric field (E-field) magnitude values. METHODS: In 42 participants receiving up to 50 total accelerated rTMS sessions in 5 days, we compared cap and neuronavigation targeting approaches in 3408 distance and 6816 angle measurements. In Experiment 1, TMS administrators saved an on-target neuronavigation location at Beam F3, which served as the landmark for all other measurements. Next, the operators placed the TMS coil based on cap markings or neuronavigation software to measure the distance and angle differences from the on-target sample. In Experiment 2, we saved each XYZ coordinate of the TMS coil from cap and neuronavigation targeting in 12 participants to compare the E-field magnitude differences at the cortical prefrontal target in 1106 cap and neuronavigation models. RESULTS: Cap targeting was significantly off-target for distance, placing the coil an average of 10.66 mm off-target (Standard error of the mean; SEM = 0.19 mm) compared to 0.3 mm (SEM = 0.03 mm) for neuronavigation (p < 0.0001). Cap targeting also significantly deviated for angles off-target, averaging 7.79 roll/pitch degrees (SEM = 1.07°) off-target and 5.99 yaw degrees (SEM = 0.12°) off-target; in comparison, neuronavigation targeting positioned the coil 0.34 roll/pitch degrees (SEM = 0.01°) and 0.22 yaw (SEM = 0.004°) off-target (both p < 0.0001). Further analyses revealed that there were significant inter-operator differences on distance and angle positioning for F3 (all p < 0.05), but not neuronavigation. Lastly, cap targeting resulted in significantly lower E-fields at the intended prefrontal cortical target, with equivalent E-fields as 110.7% motor threshold (MT; range = 58.3-127.4%) stimulation vs. 119.9% MT (range = 115-123.3%) from neuronavigated targeting with 120% MT stimulation applied (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cap-based targeting is an inherent source of target variability compared to neuronavigation. Additionally, cap-based coil placement is more prone to differences across operators. Off-target coil placement secondary to cap-based measurements results in significantly lower amounts of stimulation reaching the cortical target, with some individuals receiving only 48.6% of the intended on-target E-field. Neuronavigation technology enables more precise and accurate TMS positioning, resulting in the intended stimulation intensities at the targeted cortical level.

A transdiagnostic review of safety, efficacy, and parameter space in accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation (aTMS) is an emerging delivery schedule of repetitive TMS (rTMS). TMS is "accelerated" by applying two or more stimulation sessions within a day. This three-part review comprehensively reports the safety/tolerability, efficacy, and stimulation parameters affecting response across disorders. METHODS: We used the PubMed database to identify studies administering aTMS, which we defined as applying at least two rTMS sessions within one day. RESULTS: Our targeted literature search identified 85 aTMS studies across 18 diagnostic and healthy control groups published from July 2001 to June 2022. Excluding overlapping populations, 63 studies delivered 43,873 aTMS sessions using low frequency, high frequency, and theta burst stimulation in 1543 participants. Regarding safety, aTMS studies had similar seizure and side effect incidence rates to those reported for once daily rTMS. One seizure was reported from aTMS (0.0023% of aTMS sessions, compared with 0.0075% in once daily rTMS). The most common side effects were acute headache (28.4%), fatigue (8.6%), and scalp discomfort (8.3%), with all others under 5%. We evaluated aTMS efficacy in 23 depression studies (the condition with the most studies), finding an average response rate of 42.4% and remission rate of 28.4% (range = 0-90.5% for both). Regarding parameters, aTMS studies ranged from 2 to 10 sessions per day over 2-30 treatment days, 10-640 min between sessions, and a total of 9-104 total accelerated TMS sessions per participant (including tapering sessions). Qualitatively, response rate tends to be higher with an increasing number of sessions per day, total sessions, and total pulses. DISCUSSION: The literature to date suggests that aTMS is safe and well-tolerated across conditions. Taken together, these early studies suggest potential effectiveness even in highly treatment refractory conditions with the added potential to reduce patient burden while also expediting response time. Future studies are warranted to systematically investigate how key aTMS parameters affect treatment outcome and durability.

Electric Field Strength From Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Determines Degree of Working Memory Response: A Potential Application of Reverse-Calculation Modeling?

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for working memory is an enticing treatment, but there is mixed evidence to date. OBJECTIVES: We tested the effects of electric field strength from uniform 2 mA dosing on working memory change from prestimulation to poststimulation. Second, we statistically evaluated a reverse-calculation method of individualizing tDCS dose and its effect on normalizing electric field at the cortex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed electric field modeling on a data set of 28 healthy older adults (15 women, mean age = 73.7, SD = 7.3) who received ten sessions of active 2 mA tDCS (N = 14) or sham tDCS (N = 14) applied over bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC) in a triple-blind design. We evaluated the relationship between electric field strength and working memory change on an N-back task in conditions of above-median, high electric field from active 2 mA (N = 7), below-median, low electric field from active 2 mA (N = 7), and sham (N = 14) at regions of interest (ROI) at the left and right DLPFC. We then determined the individualized reverse-calculation dose to produce the group average electric field and measured the electric field variance between uniform 2 mA doses vs individualized reverse-calculation doses at the same ROIs. RESULTS: Working memory improvements from pre- to post-tDCS were significant for the above-median electric field from active 2 mA condition at the left DLPFC (mixed ANOVA, p = 0.013). Furthermore, reverse-calculation modeling significantly reduced electric field variance at both ROIs (Levene's test; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher electric fields at the left DLPFC from uniform 2 mA doses appear to drive working memory improvements from tDCS. Individualized doses from reverse-calculation modeling significantly reduce electric field variance at the cortex. Taken together, using reverse-calculation modeling to produce the same, high electric fields at the cortex across participants may produce more effective future tDCS treatments for working memory.

Sonication of the Anterior Thalamus With MRI-Guided Transcranial Focused Ultrasound (tFUS) Alters Pain Thresholds in Healthy Adults: A Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Study.

(Appeared originally in Brain Stimulation 2020; 13:1805-1812) Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.

The Problem and Potential of TMS' Infinite Parameter Space: A Targeted Review and Road Map Forward.

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive, effective, and FDA-approved brain stimulation method. However, rTMS parameter selection remains largely unexplored, with great potential for optimization. In this review, we highlight key studies underlying next generation rTMS therapies, particularly focusing on: (1) rTMS Parameters, (2) rTMS Target Engagement, (3) rTMS Interactions with Endogenous Brain Activity, and (4) Heritable Predisposition to Brain Stimulation Treatments. Methods: We performed a targeted review of pre-clinical and clinical rTMS studies. Results: Current evidence suggests that rTMS pattern, intensity, frequency, train duration, intertrain interval, intersession interval, pulse and session number, pulse width, and pulse shape can alter motor excitability, long term potentiation (LTP)-like facilitation, and clinical antidepressant response. Additionally, an emerging theme is how endogenous brain state impacts rTMS response. Researchers have used resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) analyses to identify personalized rTMS targets. Electroencephalography (EEG) may measure endogenous alpha rhythms that preferentially respond to personalized stimulation frequencies, or in closed-loop EEG, may be synchronized with endogenous oscillations and even phase to optimize response. Lastly, neuroimaging and genotyping have identified individual predispositions that may underlie rTMS efficacy. Conclusions: We envision next generation rTMS will be delivered using optimized stimulation parameters to rsfMRI-determined targets at intensities determined by energy delivered to the cortex, and frequency personalized and synchronized to endogenous alpha-rhythms. Further research is needed to define the dose-response curve of each parameter on plasticity and clinical response at the group level, to determine how these parameters interact, and to ultimately personalize these parameters.

Shaping plasticity with non-invasive brain stimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: Present and future.

The final chapter of this book addresses plasticity in the setting of treating psychiatric disorders. This chapter largely focuses on the treatment of depression and reviews the established antidepressant brain stimulation treatments, focusing on plasticity and maladaptive plasticity. Depression is a unique neuropsychiatric disease in that the brain goes from a healthy state into a pathologic state, and then, with appropriate treatment, can return to health often without permanent sequelae. Depression thus differs fundamentally from neurodegenerative brain diseases like Parkinson's disease or stroke. Some have theorized that depression involves a lack of flexibility or a lack of plasticity. The proven brain stimulation methods for treating depression cause plastic changes and include acute and maintenance electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), acute and maintenance transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and chronically implanted cervical vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). These treatments vary widely in their speed of onset and durability. This variability in onset speed and durability raises interesting, and so far, largely unanswered questions about the underlying neurobiological mechanisms and forms of plasticity being invoked. The chapter also covers exciting recent work with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) that is delivered paired with behaviors to cause learning and memory and plasticity changes. Taken together these current and future brain stimulation treatments for psychiatric disorders are especially promising. They are unlocking how to shape the brain in diseases to restore balance and health, with an increasing understanding of how to effectively and precisely induce therapeutic neuroplastic changes in the brain.

A reexamination of motor and prefrontal TMS in tobacco use disorder: Time for personalized dosing based on electric field modeling?

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we reexamined the use of 120% resting motor threshold (rMT) dosing for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using electric field modeling. METHODS: We computed electric field models in 38 tobacco use disorder (TUD) participants to compare figure-8 coil induced electric fields at 100% rMT over the primary motor cortex (M1), and 100% and 120% rMT over the DLPFC. We then calculated the percentage of rMT needed for motor-equivalent induced electric fields at the DLPFC and modeled this intensity for each person. RESULTS: Electric fields from 100% rMT stimulation over M1 were significantly larger than what was modeled in the DLPFC using 100% rMT (p < 0.001) and 120% rMT stimulation (p = 0.013). On average, TMS would need to be delivered at 133.5% rMT (range = 79.9 to 247.5%) to produce motor-equivalent induced electric fields at the DLPFC of 158.2 V/m. CONCLUSIONS: TMS would have to be applied at an average of 133.5% rMT over the left DLPFC to produce equivalent electric fields to 100% rMT stimulation over M1 in these 38 TUD patients. The high interindividual variability between motor and prefrontal electric fields for each participant supports using personalized electric field modeling for TMS dosing to ensure that each participant is not under- or over-stimulated. SIGNIFICANCE: These electric field modeling in TUD data suggest that 120% rMT stimulation over the DLPFC delivers sub-motor equivalent electric fields in many individuals (73.7%). With further validation, electric field modeling may be an impactful method of individually dosing TMS.