This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVE: Conventional noninvasive neuromodulation is constrained by trade-offs among field strength, focality, and penetration. We propose a phase-synchronized transcranial electromagnetic combined stimulation (TECS) approach that concurrently combines temporal interference transcranial alternating current stimulation (TI-tACS) with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to improve the local intensity-focality trade-off in the motor cortex. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate a phase-synchronized concurrent TI-tACS + rTMS paradigm. METHODS: Finite-element simulations quantified the peak magnitude-based stimulation metric in the target M1 region, together with the equivalent focal area and effective penetration depth under a half-maximum criterion. A phase-synchronized TECS system was implemented and evaluated in rats using rotarod performance, c-Fos immunofluorescence, and histology, with comparisons to TI-tACS alone, rTMS alone, and a shamlike control condition. RESULTS: TECS produced the highest peak target-region electric-field value (178.0 V/m) while maintaining a much smaller focal area than rTMS alone (8.3 vs. 76.0 mm2) and greater penetration than TI-tACS alone (2.1 vs. 1.2 mm). In vivo, TECS produced the longest rotarod latency on Day 7(288.5 ± 16.4 ~s; n=6 rats/group; daily values averaged over three trials/rat), exceeding the control, TItACS, and rTMS groups by 75.3%, 15.3%, and 19.4%, respectively. TECS also induced the highest c-Fos activation, with corresponding increases of 50.1%, 9.4%, and 12.8%, respectively. Histology revealed no overt abnormalities across conditions. CONCLUSION: Phase-synchronized TECS enhances focal electric-field intensity and neuronal activation, translating to improved motor performance. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed TECS platform provides a promising neuroengineering approach for targeted noninvasive brain stimulation, supported by simulationdefined field metrics and in vivo feasibility and safety validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: