Acoustic noise generated by TMS in typical environment and inside an MRI scanner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe operation of a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil produces high-intensity impulse sounds. In TMS, a magnetic field is generated by a short-duration pulse in the range of thousands of amperes in the TMS coil. When placed in a strong magnetic field, such as inside a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) bore, the interaction of the magnetic field and the current in the TMS coil can cause strong forces on the coil casing. The strengths of these forces depend on the coil orientation in the main magnetic field (B0). Part of the energy in this process is dissipated in the form of acoustic noise.ObjectiveOur objective was to measure the sound pressure levels (SPL) of TMS “click” sounds created by commercial TMS stimulators and coils in a typical environment and inside a 3-T MRI scanner and further the knowledge of the acoustic behaviour of TMS to be able safely to conduct TMS alone as well as concurrently with functional MRI (fMRI).MethodsWe report SPL measurements of two commercial MRI-compatible TMS systems in the 3-T B0 field of an MRI scanner and in the earth's magnetic field. Also, we present the acoustic noise measurements of four commercial TMS stimulators and three different TMS coils in a typical operational environment without the B0 field.ResultsThe maximum peak SPL measured was 158 dB(C) inside the 3 T MRI scanner. Outside the scanner, the maximum peak SPL was 117 dB(C). Inside the scanner, the peak SPL increased by 21–45 dB(C) depending on the stimulator and the orientation of the E-field compared to the static B0 field.ConclusionsHearing protection is obligatory during concurrent TMS–fMRI experiments, and it is highly recommended during any TMS experiment. The manufacturing of quieter TMS systems is encouraged to reduce the risk of hearing damage and other unwanted effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".