Mapping the cortical language representation and associated networks is not only of basic scientific interest but can also help to maximize the extent of tumour resection whilst preserving important brain functions as language. The use of navigated repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) to depict cortical sites crucially involved in language processing non-invasively is a rather novel approach, which has shown promising results. However, specificity is rather low and the level of pain and discomfort during stimulation seems to be rather high when applying the commonly used 10 Hz stimulation protocol. Therefore, we here compared different rTMS protocols in order to test for discomfort/pain, test-retest reliability, rate and site of distinct evoked language errors.13 right-handed, healthy volunteers were investigated in 3 consecutive sessions (short-term: 2–5days, long-term: 21–40days). 10 Hz, 30 Hz and 50 Hz rTMS were applied over the left hemisphere, continuously covering facial (pre-)motor and language-related cortical areas. First, stimulation intensity was adjusted to the lowest intensity required to disrupt rhythmic tongue movements when stimulating over the hotspot of the primary motor representation (M1) of the tongue. This parameter was titled ,,motor inhibition threshold“ (MIT) and was regarded suitable to mirror the efficacy of cortical inhibition. Thereafter, online-rTMS was applied during a picture-naming task in a randomized sequence. Bursts were triggered to picture presentation without delay (picture-to-trigger interval=0). Errors were rated by two independent raters using post-hoc video analysis and were categorised as follows: arrest, delay, anomia, dysarthria, semantic and phonematic paraphasia. At the end of each exam, the volunteers were asked to rate the mean and maximum level of discomfort on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS).Better tolerability was observed for the higher-frequency rTMS protocols (i.e., 30 and 50Hz) than for 10 Hz rTMS. Moreover, 30 and 50Hz rTMS reliably evoked tongue movement disruption (ICC=0.65) at lower stimulation intensities compared to 10Hz rTMS.Higher-frequency rTMS (i.e., 30 and 50 Hz) may allow for cortical inhibition at a more favourable pain-effect relationship as compared to 10Hz. Despite good test–retest reliability of the event rates, the low repeatability of the cortical sites corresponding to distinct errors requires critical discussion.