‘RMT-Finder’: an automated procedure to determine the Resting Motor Threshold for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
Full text 1,798 characters · extracted from oa-html · 3 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) studies identify the Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) to calibrate stimulation intensity. However, this procedure is time-consuming and subject to variability. We developed an automated procedure to improve the efficiency and standardization of RMT determination. New method We developed an algorithm that measures MEP amplitudes and automatically adjusts stimulation intensity to determine the RMT. Experiment 1 compared this automated method with the manual procedure in terms of reliability and equivalence. Experiment 2 developed a “Fast” automated process, assessing it against both the manual and initial automated procedures.

Results

Across both experiments the automated approach demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability and strong agreement with the manual method (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ≥0.95), giving estimates of RMT statistically equivalent to those of manual measurements within ±3% MSO, with the majority of comparisons within ±2% MSO. Experiment 2 optimized the procedure, allowing empirical determination of the RMT in an average of <3 minutes with only 33-34 pulses. Comparison with existing methods ‘RMT-Finder’ provides a reliable and time-efficient alternative to manual approaches. To the best of our knowledge RMT-Finder presents the first ‘closed-loop feedback’ approach to identify the RMT without manual intervention. This procedure can improve standardization and reproducibility in TMS studies.

Conclusions

Automating RMT assessment allows rapid and highly reproducible assessment of this standard TMS measurement, making it viable for inclusion in routine clinical applications that require standardized procedures. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-23T02:00:01.238055+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0