Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34743050›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Recording brain responses to TMS of primary motor cortex by EEG - utility of an optimized sham procedure.

Pedro C Gordon, D Blair Jovellar, YuFei Song, Christoph Zrenner, Paolo Belardinelli, Hartwig Roman Siebner, Ulf Ziemann

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 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Clinical utility and prospective of TMS-EEG: Updated review from an international expert group.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Intracerebral Electroencephalography Provides Insight About How Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Affects Brain Activity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Neural effects of TMS trains on the human prefrontal cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Pedro C GordonDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Germany.
D Blair JovellarDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Germany.
YuFei SongDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Christoph ZrennerDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Paolo BelardinelliDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Germany; CIMeC, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Italy.
Hartwig Roman SiebnerDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital - Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Fredriksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ulf ZiemannDepartment of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany; Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Germany. Electronic address: ulf.ziemann@uni-tuebingen.de.
Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DEFrederiksberg Hospital · DK

Funding

European Research Council 810377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionElectroencephalography (EEG) is increasingly used to investigate brain responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). A relevant issue is that TMS is associated with considerable auditory and somatosensory stimulation, causing peripherally evoked potentials (PEPs) in the EEG, which contaminate the direct cortical responses to TMS (TEPs). All previous attempts to control for PEPs suffer from significant limitations. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To design an optimized sham procedure to control all sensory input generated by subthreshold real TMS targeting the hand area of the primary motor cortex (M1), enabling reliable separation of TEPs from PEPs.

methodsIn 23 healthy (16 female) subjects, we recorded EEG activity evoked by an optimized sham TMS condition which masks and matches auditory and somatosensory co-stimulation during the real TMS condition: auditory control was achieved by noise masking and by using a second TMS coil that was placed on top of the real TMS coil and produced a calibrated sound pressure level. Somatosensory control was obtained by electric stimulation (ES) of the scalp with intensities sufficient to saturate somatosensory input. ES was applied in both the sham and real TMS conditions. Perception of auditory and somatosensory inputs in the sham and real TMS conditions were compared by psychophysical testing. Transcranially evoked EEG signal changes were identified by subtraction of EEG activity in the sham condition from EEG activity in the real TMS condition.

resultsPerception of auditory and somatosensory inputs in the sham vs. real TMS conditions was comparable. Both sham and real TMS evoked a series of similar EEG signal deflections and induced broadband power increase in oscillatory activity. Notably, the present procedure revealed EEG potentials and a transient increase in beta band power at the site of stimulation that were only present in the real TMS condition. DISCUSSION: The results validate the effectiveness of our optimized sham approach. Despite the presence of typical responses attributable to sensory input, the procedure provided evidence for direct cortical activation by subthreshold TMS of M1. The findings are relevant for future TMS-EEG experiments that aim at measuring regional brain target engagement controlled by an optimized sham procedure.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultEvoked PotentialsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleSomatosensory CortexSubtraction TechniqueElectroencephalographyPeripherally evoked potentialsSham stimulationTMS-EEGTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34743050
PMCPMC8752966
OpenAlexW3212673077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.