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.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation disrupts neuroplasticity of intracortical motor circuits. 96%
- Vibrotactile auricular vagus nerve stimulation alters limbic system connectivity in humans: A pilot study 95%
- Increased signal diversity/complexity of spontaneous EEG in humans given sub-anaesthetic doses of ketamine 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Immediate TMS-EEG responses reveal motor cortex excitability 96%
- Recognizing EEG responses to active TMS vs. sham stimulations in different TMS-EEG datasets: a machine learning approach 96%
- Stimulation Artifact Source Separation (SASS) for assessing electric brain oscillations during transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Probing the orientation specificity of excitatory and inhibitory circuitries in the primary motor cortex with multi-channel TMS 96%
- Test-retest reliability of intrahemispheric dorsal premotor and primary motor cortex dual-site TMS connectivity measures 95%
- Electrode positioning errors reduce current dose for focal tDCS set-ups: Evidence from individualized electric field mapping 94%
"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.