Abstract
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.