Back

The influence of somatosensory and auditory evoked potentials on concurrent transcranial-magnetic stimulation electroencephalography recordings

Chowdhury, N. S.; Rogasch, N. C.; Chiang, A.; Millard, S. K.; Skippen, P.; Chang, W.-J.; Bilska, K.; Si, E.; Seminowicz, D. A.; Schabrun, S. M.

2021-11-19 neuroscience
10.1101/2021.11.17.469035 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) evoked potentials (TEPs) can be used to index cortical excitability. However, it remains unclear to what extent TEPs reflect somatosensory and auditory-evoked potentials which arise from the scalp sensation and click of the TMS coil, as opposed to transcranial stimulation of cortical circuits. ObjectivesThe present study had two aims; a) to determine the extent to which sensory potentials contaminate TEPs using a spatially matched sham condition, and b) to determine whether sensory potentials reflect auditory or somatosensory potentials alone, or a combination of the two. MethodsTwenty healthy participants received active or sham stimulation, with the latter consisting of the click of a sham coil combined with scalp electrical stimulation. Earplugs/headphones were used to suppress the TMS click noise. Two additional control conditions i) electrical stimulation alone and ii) auditory stimulation alone were included in a subset of 13 participants. ResultsSignals from active and sham stimulation were correlated in spatial and temporal domains, especially >70ms post-stimulation. Relative to auditory or electrical stimulation alone, combined (sham) stimulation resulted in a) larger evoked responses b) stronger correlations with active stimulation and c) a signal that could not be explained by the linear sum of electrical and auditory stimulation alone. ConclusionsSensory potentials can confound data interpretations of TEPs at timepoints >70ms post-TMS, while earlier timepoints appear reflective of cortical excitability. Furthermore, contamination of TEPs cannot be explained by auditory or somatosensory potentials alone, but instead reflects a non-linear interaction between both sources. Future studies may benefit from controlling for sensory contamination using sham conditions that are spatially matched to active TMS, and which consist of combined auditory and somatosensory stimulation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.