Table 1.
Summary of dosage parameters of previous studies investigating rTMS over the primary motor cortex to enhance upper extremity motor function after stroke
| Study reference | Intensity | Freq (Hz) | Quantity of pulses | No. of stimulation sessions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contralesional stimulation | ||||
| Mansur et al. (2005) | 100% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 600 pulses | 1 |
| Takeuchi et al. (2005) | 90% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 25 min duration (1500 pulses) | 1 |
| Boggio et al. (2006) | 100% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 1200 pulses | 1 |
| Fregni et al. (2006) | 100% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 1200 pulses | 5 |
| Liepert et al. (2007) | 90% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 1200 pulses | 1 |
| Talelli et al. (2007) | 80% aMT | 50 Hz | Continuous train of 3 pulses at 50 Hz given at a freq of 5 Hz, 300 total pulses. | 1 |
| Dafotakis et al. (2008) | 100% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 10 min duration (600 pulses) | 1 |
| Nowak et al. (2008) | 100% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 10 min duration (600 pulses) | 1 |
| Takeuchi et al. (2008) | 90% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 25 min duration (1500 pulses) | 1 |
| Khedr et al. (2009) | 100% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 900 pulses | 5 |
| Ackerley et al. (2010) | 90% aMT | 50 Hz | 40 second continuous train consisting of 3 pulses at 50 Hz given at a freq of 5 Hz, repeated every 10 seconds, a total of 600 pulses | 1 |
| Emara et al. (2010) | 110–120% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 150 pulses | 10 |
| Kakuda et al. (2010) | 90% rMT | 1 Hz | Continuous train of 1200 pulses | 22 |
| Ipsilesional stimulation | ||||
| Khedr et al. (2005) | 120% rMT | 3 Hz | 10 trains of 30 pulses, 50 seconds between trains, a total of 300 pulses | 10 |
| Kim et al. (2006) | 80% rMT | 10 Hz | 8 trains of 20 pulses, 58 second intertrain interval, interspersed by finger movement task, a total of 160 pulses | 1 |
| Malcolm et al. (2007) | 90% rMT | 20 Hz | 50 trains of 40 pulses, intertrain interval of 28 seconds, a total of 2000 pulses | 10 |
| Pomeroy et al. (2007) | 120% rMT | 1 Hz | 5 trains of 40 pulses, 3 minute intertrain intervals, a total of 200 pulses | 1 |
| Talelli et al. (2007) | 80% aMT | 50 Hz | 20 trains consisting of 3 pulses at 50 Hz given at a freq of 5 Hz, intertrain interval of 8 seconds, a total of 600 pulses | 1 |
| Ameli et al. (2009) | 80% rMT | 10 Hz | 20 trains of 50 pulses, intertrain interval of 25 seconds, a total of 1000 pulses | 1 |
| Khedr et al. (2009) | 130% rMT | 3 Hz | 30 trains of 30 pulses, intertrain interval of 2 seconds, a total of 900 pulses | 5 |
| Yozbatiran et al. (2009) | 90% rMT | 20 Hz | 40 trains of 40 pulses, intertrain interval of 28 seconds, a total of 1600 pulses | 1 |
| Ackerley et al. (2010) | 90% aMT | 50 Hz | 2 second trains consisting of 3 pulses at 50 Hz given at a freq of 5 Hz , repeated every 10 seconds, a total of 600 pulses | 1 |
| Chang et al. (2010) | 90% rMT | 10 Hz | 50 trains of 50 pulses, intertrain interval of 55 seconds, a total of 1000 pulses | 10 |
| Emara et al. (2010) | 80–90% rMT | 5 Hz | Continuous train of 750 pulses | 10 |
| Khedr et al. (2010) | 3 Hz: 130% rMT; 10 Hz: 100% rMT | 3 Hz vs. 10 Hz | 3 Hz: 50 trains of 15 pulses, a total of 750 pulses 10 Hz: 37 trains, 20 pulses, a total of 750 pulses | 5 |