Transcranial (electro)magnetic stimulation (TMS) is currently the method of choice to non-invasively induce neural activity in the human brain. A single transcranial stimulus induces a time-varying electric field in the brain that may evoke action potentials in cortical neurons. The spatial relationship between the locally induced electric field and the stimulated neurons determines axonal depolarization. The induced electric field is influenced by the conductive properties of the tissue compartments and is strongest in the superficial parts of the targeted cortical gyri and underlying white matter. TMS likely targets axons of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons. The propensity of individual axons to fire an action potential in response to TMS depends on their geometry, myelination and spatial relation to the imposed electric field and the physiological state of the neuron. The latter is determined by its transsynaptic dendritic and somatic inputs, intrinsic membrane potential and firing rate. Modeling work suggests that the primary target of TMS is axonal terminals in the crown top and lip regions of cortical gyri. The induced electric field may additionally excite bends of myelinated axons in the juxtacortical white matter below the gyral crown. Neuronal excitation spreads ortho- and antidromically along the stimulated axons and causes secondary excitation of connected neuronal populations within local intracortical microcircuits in the target area. Axonal and transsynaptic spread of excitation also occurs along cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical connections, impacting on neuronal activity in the targeted network. Both local and remote neural excitation depend critically on the functional state of the stimulated target area and network. TMS also causes substantial direct co-stimulation of the peripheral nervous system. Peripheral co-excitation propagates centrally in auditory and somatosensory networks, but also produces brain responses in other networks subserving multisensory integration, orienting or arousal. The complexity of the response to TMS warrants cautious interpretation of its physiological and behavioural consequences, and a deeper understanding of the mechanistic underpinnings of TMS will be critical for advancing it as a scientific and therapeutic tool.

Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers develop interventions to change behavior based on their understanding of how behavior change techniques (BCTs) impact the determinants of behavior. A transparent, systematic, and accessible method of linking BCTs with the processes through which they change behavior (i.e., their mechanisms of action [MoAs]) would advance the understanding of intervention effects and improve theory and intervention development. The purpose of this study is to triangulate evidence for hypothesized BCT-MoA links obtained in two previous studies and present the results in an interactive, online tool. Two previous studies generated evidence on links between 56 BCTs and 26 MoAs based on their frequency in literature synthesis and on expert consensus. Concordance between the findings of the two studies was examined using multilevel modeling. Uncertainties and differences between the two studies were reconciled by 16 behavior change experts using consensus development methods. The resulting evidence was used to generate an online tool. The two studies showed concordance for 25 of the 26 MoAs and agreement for 37 links and for 460 \"nonlinks.\" A further 55 links were resolved by consensus (total of 92 [37 + 55] hypothesized BCT-MoA links). Full data on 1,456 possible links was incorporated into the online interactive Theory and Technique Tool (https://theoryandtechniquetool.humanbehaviourchange.org/). This triangulation of two distinct sources of evidence provides guidance on how BCTs may affect the mechanisms that change behavior and is available as a resource for behavior change intervention designers, researchers and theorists, supporting intervention design, research synthesis, and collaborative research.

Understanding the mechanisms through which behavior change techniques (BCTs) can modify behavior is important for the development and evaluation of effective behavioral interventions. To advance the field, we require a shared knowledge of the mechanisms of action (MoAs) through which BCTs may operate when influencing behavior.
To elicit expert consensus on links between BCTs and MoAs.
In a modified Nominal Group Technique study, 105 international behavior change experts rated, discussed, and rerated links between 61 frequently used BCTs and 26 MoAs. The criterion for consensus was that at least 80 per cent of experts reached agreement about a link. Heat maps were used to present the data relating to all possible links.
Of 1,586 possible links (61 BCTs × 26 MoAs), 51 of 61 (83.6 per cent) BCTs had a definite link to one or more MoAs (mean [SD] = 1.44 [0.96], range = 1-4), and 20 of 26 (76.9 per cent) MoAs had a definite link to one or more BCTs (mean [SD] = 3.27 [2.91], range = 9). Ninety (5.7 per cent) were identified as \"definite\" links, 464 (29.2 per cent) as \"definitely not\" links, and 1,032 (65.1 per cent) as \"possible\" or \"unsure\" links. No \"definite\" links were identified for 10 BCTs (e.g., \"Action Planning\" and \"Behavioural Substitution\") and for six MoAs (e.g., \"Needs\" and \"Optimism\").
The matrix of links between BCTs and MoAs provides a basis for those developing and synthesizing behavioral interventions. These links also provide a framework for specifying empirical tests in future studies.