@article{discovery10086007,
         journal = {Brain Stimulation},
            year = {2019},
           title = {Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation: The role of coil type from distinct manufacturers},
           month = {October},
            note = {This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.},
            issn = {1876-4754},
        keywords = {Cerebellar-M1, Cerebellum, Connectivity, Transcranial magnetic stimulation},
        abstract = {BACKGROUND: Stimulating the cerebellum with transcranial magnetic stimulation is often perceived as uncomfortable. No study has systematically tested which coil design can effectively trigger a cerebellar response with the least discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between perceived discomfort and effectiveness of cerebellar stimulation using different coils: MagStim (70 mm, 110 mm-coated, 110-uncoated), MagVenture and Deymed. METHODS: Using the cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI) protocol, we conducted a CBI recruitment curve with respect to each participant's maximum tolerated-stimulus intensity (MTI) to assess how effective each coil was at activating the cerebellum. RESULTS: Only the Deymed double-cone coil elicited CBI at low intensities (-20\% MTI). At the MTI, the MagStim (110 mm coated/uncoated) and Deymed coils produced reliable CBI, whereas no CBI was found with the MagVenture coil. CONCLUSION: s: The Deymed double-cone coil was most effective at cerebellar stimulation at tolerable intensities. These results can guide coil selection and stimulation parameters when designing cerebellar TMS studies.},
             url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.09.005},
          author = {Spampinato, D and Ib{\'a}{\~n}ez, J and Spanoudakis, M and Hammond, P and Rothwell, JC}
}