ArticleBiosensors2022
Investigation of Spatiotemporal Profiles of Single-Pulse TMS-Evoked Potentials with Active Stimulation Compared with a Novel Sham Condition.
Article in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the effects of TMS-related somatosensory inputs on TMS-evoked potentials provides evidence against significant interaction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development of Artificial Intelligence for Determining Major Depressive Disorder Based on Resting-State EEG and Single-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-Evoked EEG Indices.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying genuine cortical stimulation-elicited electroencephalography (EEG) is crucial for improving the validity and reliability of neurophysiology using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) combined with EEG. In this study, we evaluated the spatiotemporal profiles of single-pulse TMS-elicited EEG response administered to the left dorsal prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in 28 healthy participants, employing active and sham stimulation conditions. We hypothesized that the early component of TEP would be activated in active stimulation compared with sham stimulation. We specifically analyzed the (1) stimulus response, (2) frequency modulation, and (3) phase synchronization of TMS-EEG data at the sensor level and the source level. Compared with the sham condition, the active condition induced a significant increase in TMS-elicited EEG power in the 30-60 ms time interval in the stimulation area at the sensor level. Furthermore, in the source-based analysis, the active condition induced significant increases in TMS-elicited response in the 30-60 ms compared with the sham condition. Collectively, we found that the active condition could specifically activate the early component of TEP compared with the sham condition. Thus, the TMS-EEG method that was applied to the DLPFC could detect the genuine neurophysiological cortical responses by properly handling potential confounding factors such as indirect response noises.
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.