ArticleBrain sciences2023
Machine Learning-Based Classification to Disentangle EEG Responses to TMS and Auditory Input.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating Neuropharmacological Features of the Cortical Activity of Cannabidiol GWP42003 P-A Phase 1 Clinical Trial.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Recognizing EEG responses to active TMS vs. sham stimulations in different TMS-EEG datasets: A machine learning approach.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Real-time TMS-EEG for brain state-controlled research and precision treatment: a narrative review and guide.Journal of neural engineering · 2024Review
- The Past, Current and Future Research in Cerebellar TMS Evoked Responses-A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Using TMS-EEG to assess the effects of neuromodulation techniques: a narrative review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography (EEG) offers an unparalleled opportunity to study cortical physiology by characterizing brain electrical responses to external perturbation, called transcranial-evoked potentials (TEPs). Although these reflect cortical post-synaptic potentials, they can be contaminated by auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) due to the TMS click, which partly show a similar spatial and temporal scalp distribution. Therefore, TEPs and AEPs can be difficult to disentangle by common statistical methods, especially in conditions of suboptimal AEP suppression. In this work, we explored the ability of machine learning algorithms to distinguish TEPs recorded with masking of the TMS click, AEPs and non-masked TEPs in a sample of healthy subjects. Overall, our classifier provided reliable results at the single-subject level, even for signals where differences were not shown in previous works. Classification accuracy (CA) was lower at the group level, when different subjects were used for training and test phases, and when three stimulation conditions instead of two were compared. Lastly, CA was higher when average, rather than single-trial TEPs, were used. In conclusion, this proof-of-concept study proposes machine learning as a promising tool to separate pure TEPs from those contaminated by sensory input.
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.