The impact of Independent Component Analysis on TMS-evoked potentials: a within-subject comparison across motor and prefrontal areas

IF 2.3 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Clinical Neurophysiology Practice Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-04 DOI:10.1016/j.cnp.2026.03.007
Eva Oostra , Emile d’Angremont , Timo van Hattem , Shilpa Anand , Sophie Schubert , Odile A. van den Heuvel , Ysbrand D. van der Werf
{"title":"The impact of Independent Component Analysis on TMS-evoked potentials: a within-subject comparison across motor and prefrontal areas","authors":"Eva Oostra ,&nbsp;Emile d’Angremont ,&nbsp;Timo van Hattem ,&nbsp;Shilpa Anand ,&nbsp;Sophie Schubert ,&nbsp;Odile A. van den Heuvel ,&nbsp;Ysbrand D. van der Werf","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2026.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Independent component analysis (ICA) is a common method to remove artifacts and improve signal quality in transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) data. However, the impact of applying different rounds of ICA for TMS-EEG datasets are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of applying zero, one, or two rounds of ICA on TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) in the motor cortex and prefrontal cortex using a within-subject design.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Twenty-three healthy participants received 51 single-pulses over the left primary motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), with simultaneous EEG-recording. Data were preprocessed three times: with zero, one, or two rounds of ICA. We compared the TEP-amplitudes and local mean field potential-area under the curve (LMFP-AUC).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After M1 stimulation, preprocessing two ICA rounds resulted in significantly more N40-peaks identified, and smaller P30 (3.84 µV ± 0.78) and P60 (3.08 µV ± 0.96) amplitudes compared to 0 ICA rounds. After DLPFC stimulation, zero ICA rounds led to significantly fewer identified P30 (n = 4) and N40-peaks (n = 5), and larger P60 (5.63 µV ± 1.34) and P180-amplitudes (8.62 µV ± 0.76) compared to 0 ICA. The N100-component remained stable across ICA conditions for both brain areas.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Our results showed a large impact of ICA, compared to zero ICA rounds, particularly after DLPFC stimulation; likely due to increased eye-blink artifacts. We therefore recommend implementing eye-blink artefact removal during the first round of ICA. In M1, the addition of an ICA round only impacted the early-TEPs. This study is the first to directly compare ICA-effects on both motor and non-motor TMS-EEG data using a within-subject design.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"11 ","pages":"Pages 273-281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467981X26000259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Independent component analysis (ICA) is a common method to remove artifacts and improve signal quality in transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) data. However, the impact of applying different rounds of ICA for TMS-EEG datasets are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of applying zero, one, or two rounds of ICA on TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) in the motor cortex and prefrontal cortex using a within-subject design.

Methods

Twenty-three healthy participants received 51 single-pulses over the left primary motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), with simultaneous EEG-recording. Data were preprocessed three times: with zero, one, or two rounds of ICA. We compared the TEP-amplitudes and local mean field potential-area under the curve (LMFP-AUC).

Results

After M1 stimulation, preprocessing two ICA rounds resulted in significantly more N40-peaks identified, and smaller P30 (3.84 µV ± 0.78) and P60 (3.08 µV ± 0.96) amplitudes compared to 0 ICA rounds. After DLPFC stimulation, zero ICA rounds led to significantly fewer identified P30 (n = 4) and N40-peaks (n = 5), and larger P60 (5.63 µV ± 1.34) and P180-amplitudes (8.62 µV ± 0.76) compared to 0 ICA. The N100-component remained stable across ICA conditions for both brain areas.

Discussion

Our results showed a large impact of ICA, compared to zero ICA rounds, particularly after DLPFC stimulation; likely due to increased eye-blink artifacts. We therefore recommend implementing eye-blink artefact removal during the first round of ICA. In M1, the addition of an ICA round only impacted the early-TEPs. This study is the first to directly compare ICA-effects on both motor and non-motor TMS-EEG data using a within-subject design.
独立成分分析对tms诱发电位的影响:跨运动和前额叶区域的受试者内比较
背景无关分量分析(ICA)是经颅磁刺激结合脑电图(TMS-EEG)数据去除伪影、改善信号质量的常用方法。然而,不同回合的ICA对TMS-EEG数据集的影响是缺乏的。在这里,我们使用受试者内设计研究了应用零、一或两轮ICA对运动皮层和前额叶皮层的tms诱发电位(TEPs)的影响。方法23例健康受试者在左初级运动皮层(M1)和背外侧前额叶皮层(DLPFC)接受51次单脉冲刺激,同时进行脑电图记录。数据预处理三次:0轮、1轮或2轮ICA。我们比较了tep振幅和局部平均场曲线下电位面积(lmpp - auc)。结果M1刺激后,预处理2轮ICA的n40峰明显增加,P30(3.84µV±0.78)和P60(3.08µV±0.96)振幅明显小于0轮ICA。在DLPFC刺激后,与0次ICA相比,0次ICA导致识别的P30 (n = 4)和n40峰(n = 5)明显减少,P60(5.63µV±1.34)和p180振幅(8.62µV±0.76)较大。在ICA条件下,n100成分在两个脑区都保持稳定。我们的研究结果显示,与没有进行ICA相比,ICA的影响很大,特别是在DLPFC刺激后;可能是由于眨眼现象增多。因此,我们建议在第一轮ICA中进行眨眼伪影去除。在M1中,增加一枚ICA子弹只会影响早期的tep。本研究首次使用受试者内设计直接比较ica对运动和非运动TMS-EEG数据的影响。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Neurophysiology Practice (CNP) is a new Open Access journal that focuses on clinical practice issues in clinical neurophysiology including relevant new research, case reports or clinical series, normal values and didactic reviews. It is an official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology and complements Clinical Neurophysiology which focuses on innovative research in the specialty. It has a role in supporting established clinical practice, and an educational role for trainees, technicians and practitioners.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书