ArticleNeuroImage2019
Inherent physiological artifacts in EEG during tDCS.
Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Ultrasonic Platform for Bioelectronic Control through Biological Barriers Based on Metasurface.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Augmentation of frontoparietal gamma-band phase coupling enhances human altruistic behavior.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation neuromodulates intracranial cognitive evoked activity in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Interoceptive signals shape the earliest markers and neural pathway to awareness at the visual threshold.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Alignment of behaviour and tDCS stimulation site induces maximum response: evidence from online tDCS and ERP.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Direct current stimulation as a non-invasive therapeutic alternative for treating autonomic or non-autonomic neurological disorders affecting breathing.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2024Review
- Advanced Methodology for Neurophysiological Analysis and Biomarker Development: Time-Frequency and Source-Localization Approaches.Advances in neurobiology · 2024Review
- Closing the loop between brain and electrical stimulation: towards precision neuromodulation treatments.Translational psychiatry · 2023Review
- Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation for Stroke Recovery: A Novel Deep Brain Stimulation Approach for Neurorehabilitation?IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Amplitude modulated transcranial alternating current stimulation (AM-TACS) efficacy evaluation via phosphene induction.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Dataset of concurrent EEG, ECG, and behavior with multiple doses of transcranial electrical stimulation.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Convolutional Neural Network for Drowsiness Detection Using EEG Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Electrophysiology equipment for reliable study of kHz electrical stimulation.The Journal of physiology · 2019Review
- Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.Brain stimulationReview
- Transcranial electrical stimulation motor threshold can estimate individualized tDCS dosage from reverse-calculation electric-field modeling.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Online imaging and neuromodulation is invalid if stimulation distorts measurements beyond the point of accurate measurement. In theory, combining transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) with electroencephalography (EEG) is compelling, as both use non-invasive electrodes and image-guided dose can be informed by the reciprocity principle. To distinguish real changes in EEG from stimulation artifacts, prior studies applied conventional signal processing techniques (e.g. high-pass filtering, ICA). Here, we address the assumptions underlying the suitability of these approaches. We distinguish physiological artifacts - defined as artifacts resulting from interactions between the stimulation induced voltage and the body and so inherent regardless of tDCS or EEG hardware performance - from methodology-related artifacts - arising from non-ideal experimental conditions or non-ideal stimulation and recording equipment performance. Critically, we identify inherent physiological artifacts which are present in all online EEG-tDCS: 1) cardiac distortion and 2) ocular motor distortion. In conjunction, non-inherent physiological artifacts which can be minimized in most experimental conditions include: 1) motion and 2) myogenic distortion. Artifact dynamics were analyzed for varying stimulation parameters (montage, polarity, current) and stimulation hardware. Together with concurrent physiological monitoring (ECG, respiration, ocular, EMG, head motion), and current flow modeling, each physiological artifact was explained by biological source-specific body impedance changes, leading to incremental changes in scalp DC voltage that are significantly larger than real neural signals. Because these artifacts modulate the DC voltage and scale with applied current, they are dose specific such that their contamination cannot be accounted for by conventional experimental controls (e.g. differing stimulation montage or current as a control). Moreover, because the EEG artifacts introduced by physiologic processes during tDCS are high dimensional (as indicated by Generalized Singular Value Decomposition- GSVD), non-stationary, and overlap highly with neurogenic frequencies, these artifacts cannot be easily removed with conventional signal processing techniques. Spatial filtering techniques (GSVD) suggest that the removal of physiological artifacts would significantly degrade signal integrity. Physiological artifacts, as defined here, would emerge only during tDCS, thus processing techniques typically applied to EEG in the absence of tDCS would not be suitable for artifact removal during tDCS. All concurrent EEG-tDCS must account for physiological artifacts that are a) present regardless of equipment used, and b) broadband and confound a broad range of experiments (e.g. oscillatory activity and event related potentials). Removal of these artifacts requires the recognition of their non-stationary, physiology-specific dynamics, and individualized nature. We present a broad taxonomy of artifacts (non/stimulation related), and suggest possible approaches and challenges to denoising online EEG-tDCS stimulation artifacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.