Methodological Choices Matter: A Systematic Comparison of TMS-EEG Studies Targeting the Primary Motor Cortex

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Mikkel Malling Beck, Marieke Heyl, Louise Mejer, Mikkel C. Vinding, Lasse Christiansen, Leo Tomasevic, Hartwig Roman Siebner
{"title":"Methodological Choices Matter: A Systematic Comparison of TMS-EEG Studies Targeting the Primary Motor Cortex","authors":"Mikkel Malling Beck,&nbsp;Marieke Heyl,&nbsp;Louise Mejer,&nbsp;Mikkel C. Vinding,&nbsp;Lasse Christiansen,&nbsp;Leo Tomasevic,&nbsp;Hartwig Roman Siebner","doi":"10.1002/hbm.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) triggers time-locked cortical activity that can be recorded with electroencephalography (EEG). Transcranial evoked potentials (TEPs) are widely used to probe brain responses to TMS. Here, we systematically reviewed 137 published experiments that studied TEPs elicited from TMS to the human primary motor cortex (M1) in healthy individuals to investigate the impact of methodological choices. We scrutinized prevalent methodological choices and assessed how consistently they were reported in published papers. We extracted amplitudes and latencies from reported TEPs and compared specific TEP peaks and components between studies using distinct methods. Reporting of methodological details was overall sufficient, but some relevant information regarding the TMS settings and the recording and preprocessing of EEG data were missing in more than 25% of the included experiments. The published TEP latencies and amplitudes confirm the “prototypical” TEP waveform following stimulation of M1, comprising distinct N15, P30, N45, P60, N100, and P180 peaks. However, variations in amplitude were evident across studies. Higher stimulation intensities were associated with overall larger TEP amplitudes. Active noise masking during TMS generally resulted in lower TEP amplitudes compared to no or passive masking but did not specifically impact those TEP peaks linked to long-latency sensory processing. Studies implementing independent component analysis (ICA) for artifact removal generally reported lower TEP magnitudes. In summary, some aspects of reporting practices could be improved in future TEP studies to enable replication. Methodological choices, including TMS intensity and the use of noise masking or ICA, introduce systematic differences in reported TEP amplitudes. Further investigation into the significance of these and other methodological factors and their interactions is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":13019,"journal":{"name":"Human Brain Mapping","volume":"45 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512442/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Brain Mapping","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.70048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) triggers time-locked cortical activity that can be recorded with electroencephalography (EEG). Transcranial evoked potentials (TEPs) are widely used to probe brain responses to TMS. Here, we systematically reviewed 137 published experiments that studied TEPs elicited from TMS to the human primary motor cortex (M1) in healthy individuals to investigate the impact of methodological choices. We scrutinized prevalent methodological choices and assessed how consistently they were reported in published papers. We extracted amplitudes and latencies from reported TEPs and compared specific TEP peaks and components between studies using distinct methods. Reporting of methodological details was overall sufficient, but some relevant information regarding the TMS settings and the recording and preprocessing of EEG data were missing in more than 25% of the included experiments. The published TEP latencies and amplitudes confirm the “prototypical” TEP waveform following stimulation of M1, comprising distinct N15, P30, N45, P60, N100, and P180 peaks. However, variations in amplitude were evident across studies. Higher stimulation intensities were associated with overall larger TEP amplitudes. Active noise masking during TMS generally resulted in lower TEP amplitudes compared to no or passive masking but did not specifically impact those TEP peaks linked to long-latency sensory processing. Studies implementing independent component analysis (ICA) for artifact removal generally reported lower TEP magnitudes. In summary, some aspects of reporting practices could be improved in future TEP studies to enable replication. Methodological choices, including TMS intensity and the use of noise masking or ICA, introduce systematic differences in reported TEP amplitudes. Further investigation into the significance of these and other methodological factors and their interactions is warranted.

Abstract Image

方法选择很重要:以初级运动皮层为目标的 TMS-EEG 研究的系统性比较。
经颅磁刺激(TMS)可触发时间锁定的皮层活动,这种活动可通过脑电图(EEG)记录下来。经颅诱发电位(TEP)被广泛用于探测大脑对 TMS 的反应。在此,我们系统地回顾了 137 项已发表的实验,这些实验研究了在健康人的初级运动皮层(M1)上通过 TMS 引起的 TEPs,以调查方法选择的影响。我们仔细研究了普遍采用的方法,并评估了这些方法在已发表论文中的一致性。我们从报告的 TEP 中提取了振幅和潜伏期,并比较了采用不同方法研究的特定 TEP 峰值和成分。总体而言,方法细节的报告是充分的,但在超过 25% 的纳入实验中,缺少有关 TMS 设置以及脑电图数据记录和预处理的一些相关信息。已发表的 TEP 延迟和振幅证实了刺激 M1 后的 "原型 "TEP 波形,包括明显的 N15、P30、N45、P60、N100 和 P180 峰。然而,在不同的研究中,振幅的变化也很明显。刺激强度越高,TEP振幅越大。与无屏蔽或被动屏蔽相比,TMS 期间的主动噪声屏蔽通常会导致较低的 TEP 振幅,但并不会特别影响与长时程感觉处理相关的 TEP 峰值。采用独立成分分析(ICA)去除伪影的研究报告通常会降低 TEP 幅值。总之,在未来的 TEP 研究中,报告方法的某些方面可以加以改进,以便进行复制。方法的选择,包括 TMS 强度和噪声掩蔽或 ICA 的使用,会在报告的 TEP 幅值中引入系统性差异。有必要对这些因素和其他方法学因素的重要性及其相互作用进行进一步调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Brain Mapping
Human Brain Mapping 医学-核医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
401
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Brain Mapping publishes peer-reviewed basic, clinical, technical, and theoretical research in the interdisciplinary and rapidly expanding field of human brain mapping. The journal features research derived from non-invasive brain imaging modalities used to explore the spatial and temporal organization of the neural systems supporting human behavior. Imaging modalities of interest include positron emission tomography, event-related potentials, electro-and magnetoencephalography, magnetic resonance imaging, and single-photon emission tomography. Brain mapping research in both normal and clinical populations is encouraged. Article formats include Research Articles, Review Articles, Clinical Case Studies, and Technique, as well as Technological Developments, Theoretical Articles, and Synthetic Reviews. Technical advances, such as novel brain imaging methods, analyses for detecting or localizing neural activity, synergistic uses of multiple imaging modalities, and strategies for the design of behavioral paradigms and neural-systems modeling are of particular interest. The journal endorses the propagation of methodological standards and encourages database development in the field of human brain mapping.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信