Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33412281›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Stimulation artifact source separation (SASS) for assessing electric brain oscillations during transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS).

David Haslacher, Khaled Nasr, Stephen E Robinson, Christoph Braun, Surjo R Soekadar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. [Research progress on transcranial electrical stimulation for deep brain stimulation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

David HaslacherClinical Neurotechnology Lab, Neuroscience Research Center (NWFZ), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Khaled NasrClinical Neurotechnology Lab, Neuroscience Research Center (NWFZ), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Stephen E RobinsonNational Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), MEG Core Facility, Bethesda, USA.
Christoph BraunMEG Center, University of Tübingen, Germany; CIMeC, Center of Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Italy.
Surjo R SoekadarClinical Neurotechnology Lab, Neuroscience Research Center (NWFZ), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Applied Neurotechnology Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of Tübingen, Germany. Electronic address: surjo.soekadar@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DENational Institute of Mental Health · USUniversity of Trento · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain oscillations, e.g. measured by electro- or magnetoencephalography (EEG/MEG), are causally linked to brain functions that are fundamental for perception, cognition and learning. Recent advances in neurotechnology provide means to non-invasively target these oscillations using frequency-tuned amplitude-modulated transcranial alternating current stimulation (AM-tACS). However, online adaptation of stimulation parameters to ongoing brain oscillations remains an unsolved problem due to stimulation artifacts that impede such adaptation, particularly at the target frequency. Here, we introduce a real-time compatible artifact rejection algorithm (Stimulation Artifact Source Separation, SASS) that overcomes this limitation. SASS is a spatial filter (linear projection) removing EEG signal components that are maximally different in the presence versus absence of stimulation. This enables the reliable removal of stimulation-specific signal components, while leaving physiological signal components unaffected. For validation of SASS, we evoked brain activity with known phase and amplitude using 10 Hz visual flickers across 7 healthy human volunteers. 64-channel EEG was recorded during and in absence of 10 Hz AM-tACS targeting the visual cortex. Phase differences between AM-tACS and the visual stimuli were randomized, so that steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) were phase-locked to the visual stimuli but not to the AM-tACS signal. For validation, distributions of single-trial amplitude and phase of EEG signals recorded during and in absence of AM-tACS were compared for each participant. When no artifact rejection method was applied, AM-tACS stimulation artifacts impeded assessment of single-trial SSVEP amplitude and phase. Using SASS, amplitude and phase of single trials recorded during and in absence of AM-tACS were comparable. These results indicate that SASS can be used to establish adaptive (closed-loop) AM-tACS, a potentially powerful tool to target various brain functions, and to investigate how AM-tACS interacts with electric brain oscillations.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtifactsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedAdultBrainEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleHumansMaleTranscranial Direct Current StimulationYoung AdultBrain oscillationsElectroencephalography (EEG)Single-trialStimulation artifactTranscranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)

Identifiers

PMID33412281
PMCPMC7903161
OpenAlexW3118578711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.