Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30321643›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Inherent physiological artifacts in EEG during tDCS.

Nigel Gebodh, Zeinab Esmaeilpour, Devin Adair, Kenneth Chelette, Jacek Dmochowski, Adam J Woods, Emily S Kappenman, Lucas C Parra, Marom Bikson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Transcranial direct current stimulation neuromodulates intracranial cognitive evoked activity in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. 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 · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nigel GebodhNeural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ngebodh01@citymail.cuny.edu.
Zeinab EsmaeilpourNeural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: zesmaeilpour@ccny.cuny.edu.
Devin AdairDepartment of Psychology, The Graduate Center at City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: dadair@gradcenter.cuny.edu.
Kenneth CheletteANT Neuro North America, Madison, WI, USA.
Jacek DmochowskiNeural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: jdmochowski@ccny.cuny.edu.
Adam J WoodsCenter for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: ajwoods@phhp.ufl.edu.
Emily S KappenmanSan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. Electronic address: emily.kappenman@sdsu.edu.
Lucas C ParraNeural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: parra@ccny.cuny.edu.
Marom BiksonNeural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA; Department of Psychology, The Graduate Center at City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: bikson@ccny.cuny.edu.

Funding

Training and Career Development CoreU54CA132378 · NCI · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI Bao Q Vuong · 2008 to 2026
$28.9M
Training and Career Development and Education CoreU54CA137788 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI Daniel Alan Heller · 2008 to 2026
$28.1M
Augmenting Cognitive Training in Older Adults - The ACT GrantR01AG054077 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI COHEN, RONALD A, MARSISKE, MICHAEL · 2016 to 2020
$6.9M
Together: Transforming and Translating Discovery to Improve HealthKL2TR001429 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI GUIRGIS, FAHEEM W, LEEUWENBURGH, CHRISTIAAN · 2015 to 2023
$5.5M
Temporal dynamics of neurophysiological patterns as treatment targets in SzR01MH109289 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI JAVITT, DANIEL C. · 2016 to 2020
$3.7M
A tool-box to control and enhance tDCS spatial precisionR01MH111896 · NIMH · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI BIKSON, MAROM · 2016 to 2019
$2.2M
The coupled vascular hypothesis for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)R01NS101362 · NINDS · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI BIKSON, MAROM · 2017 to 2021
$1.7M
Neuromodulation of Cognition in Older AdultsK01AG050707 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI WOODS, ADAM J. · 2016 to 2020
$613k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001429NCI NIH HHS U54 CA132378NCI NIH HHS U54 CA137788NIA NIH HHS K01 AG050707NIA NIH HHS R01 AG054077NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH109289NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111896NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS101362
6 · The paper itself

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

ArtifactsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedAdolescentAdultBrainBrain MappingComputer SimulationElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleTranscranial Direct Current StimulationYoung AdultElectrocardiogram (ECG)Electroencephalography (EEG)Finite element method (FEM)Physiological artifactTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)Transcranial electric stimulation (tES)

Identifiers

PMID30321643
PMCPMC6289749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.