Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs), recorded using electroencephalography (EEG), reflect a combination of TMS-induced cortical activity and multi-sensory responses to TMS. The auditory evoked potential (AEP) is a high-amplitude sensory potential—evoked by the “click” sound produced by every TMS pulse—that can dominate the TEP and obscure observation of other neural components. The AEP is peripherally evoked and therefore should not be stimulation site specific. We address the problem of disentangling the peripherally evoked AEP of the TEP from components evoked by cortical stimulation and ask whether removal of AEP enables more accurate isolation of TEP. We hypothesized that isolation of the AEP using Independent Components Analysis (ICA) would reveal features that are stimulation site specific and unique individual features. In order to improve the effectiveness of ICA for removal of AEP from the TEP, and thus more clearly separate the transcranial-evoked and non-specific TMS-modulated potentials, we merged sham and active TMS datasets representing multiple stimulation conditions, removed the resulting AEP component, and evaluated performance across different sham protocols and clinical populations using reduction in Global and Local Mean Field Power (GMFP/LMFP) and cosine similarity analysis. We show that removing AEPs significantly reduced GMFP and LMFP in the post-stimulation TEP (14 to 400 ms), driven by time windows consistent with the N100 and P200 temporal characteristics of AEPs. Cosine similarity analysis supports that removing AEPs reduces TEP similarity between subjects and reduces TEP similarity between stimulation conditions. Similarity is reduced most in a mid-latency window consistent with the N100 time-course, but nevertheless remains high in this time window. Residual TEP in this window has a time-course and topography unique from AEPs, which follow-up exploratory analyses suggest could be a modulation in the alpha band that is not stimulation site specific but is unique to individual subject. We show, using two datasets and two implementations of sham, evidence in cortical topography, TEP time-course, GMFP/LMFP and cosine similarity analyses that this procedure is effective and conservative in removing the AEP from TEP, and may thus better isolate TMS-evoked activity. We show TEP remaining in early, mid and late latencies. The early response is site and subject specific. Later response may be consistent with TMS-modulated alpha activity that is not site specific but is unique to the individual. TEP remaining after removal of AEP is unique and can provide insight into TMS-evoked potentials and other modulated oscillatory dynamics.

Highlights

  • Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs), recorded using electroencephalography (EEG), reflect a combination of TMS-induced cortical activity and multisensory responses to TMS

  • We show that auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) evoked by the sound associated with the discharge of each TMS pulse can be isolated and extracted from the TMS-evoked EEG potential (TEP) after performing Independent Components Analysis (ICA) on merged active and sham stimulation conditions

  • Using data from two separate studies, we show effective and conservative extraction of AEP with younger adult as well as an older population, with variations of sham stimulation protocols, and with different TMS devices and EEG systems

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs), recorded using electroencephalography (EEG), reflect a combination of TMS-induced cortical activity and multisensory responses to TMS. We show, using two datasets and two implementations of sham, evidence in cortical topography, TEP time-course, GMFP/LMFP and cosine similarity analyses that this procedure is effective and conservative in removing the AEP from TEP, and may better isolate TMS-evoked activity. One large sensory component appears to be due, at least in part, to auditory processing of the “click” caused by mechanical deflection of the copper coil when electrical current passes through i­t27 This auditory evoked potential (AEP) dominates the TEP w­ aveform[16] and is a stereotyped response to an auditory stimulus, with peaks at 50 ms from primary auditory cortical response and at 100 and 200 ms from responses in surrounding belt areas of ­A128–30. AEP might explain TEP non-specificity across site and stimulation c­ onditions[16]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call