Virtual reality headset geometry constrains dorsolateral prefrontal cortex targeting with transcranial magnetic stimulation
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
The integration of virtual reality (VR) and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), particularly transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), represents a promising approach for closed-loop neuromodulation. Yet the concurrent application remains limited, partly due to insufficient characterization of hardware compatibility of head-mounted displays with standard TMS coil placement protocols.
Objective
To systematically quantify the coil-to-scalp distance constraints imposed by VR headsets across cortical targets and coil orientations and to determine feasible intensity compensation ranges based on stimulator output parameters.
Methods
Neuronavigated coil positioning was performed on five anatomically realistic 3D-printed head models across 26 scalp positions in eight coil orientations based on the 10-10 EEG system and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using two VR headsets of notably different form factors (Meta Quest 2 and Bigscreen Beyond). The deviations of coil positions from intended targets were registered and quantified as coil-to-scalp distance displacement. Individual electric field (E-field) simulations were conducted in SimNIBS at the F3 position across 4-40 mm coil-to-scalp distance to characterize field decay and assess the limits of intensity compensation.
Results
Both in the directed DLPFC targeting and in systematic scalp positions evaluation, the Meta Quest 2 headset substantially increased coil-to-scalp distance over prefrontal regions, exceeding the compensable range across all metrics. The Bigscreen Beyond headset produced significantly smaller coil-to-scalp distance displacement in prefrontal regions, remaining within feasible E-field intensity compensation limits. Single-pulse and iTBS protocols did not induce functional interference with the hardware under realistic targeting conditions.
Conclusion
VR headset geometry is the primary determinant of concurrent VR-TMS feasibility. The findings define practical quantitative hardware design requirements and boundaries for future integrated VR-TMS systems and provide a practical framework for optimizing existing VR-TMS protocols.
