Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38072355›Full record

ArticleBrain stimulation

Measuring the accuracy of ICA-based artifact removal from TMS-evoked potentials.

Iiris Atti, Paolo Belardinelli, Risto J Ilmoniemi, Johanna Metsomaa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Noninvasive Biomarkers for Assessing the Excitatory/Inhibitory Imbalance in Children with Epilepsy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Iiris AttiDepartment of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University School of Science, Finland.
Paolo BelardinelliCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences - CIMeC, University of Trento, Italy; Department of Neurology & Stroke, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Risto J IlmoniemiDepartment of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University School of Science, Finland.
Johanna MetsomaaDepartment of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University School of Science, Finland. Electronic address: johanna.metsomaa@aalto.fi.

Funding

European Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe analysis and interpretation of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs) relies on successful cleaning of the artifacts, which typically mask the early (0-30 ms) TEPs. Independent component analysis (ICA) is possibly the single most utilized methodology to clean these signals.

objectiveICA-based cleaning is reliable provided that the input data are composed of independent components. Differently, in case the underlying components are to some extent dependent, ICA algorithms may yield erroneous estimates of the components, resulting in incorrectly cleaned data. We aim to ascertain whether TEP signals are suited for ICA.

methodsWe present a systematic analysis of how the properties of simulated artifacts imposed on measured artifact-free TEPs affect the ICA results. The variability of the artifact waveform over the recorded trials is varied from deterministic to stochastic. We measure the accuracy of ICA-based cleaning for each level of variability.

resultsOur findings indicate that, when the trial-to-trial variability of an artifact component is small, which can result in dependencies between underlying components, ICA-based cleaning biases towards eliminating also non-artifactual TEP data. We also show that the variability can be measured using the ICA-derived components, which in turn allows us to estimate the cleaning accuracy.

conclusionAs TEP artifacts tend to have small trial-to-trial variability, one should be aware of the possibility of eliminating brain-derived EEG when applying ICA-based cleaning strategies. In practice, after ICA, the artifact component variability can be measured, and it predicts to some extent the cleaning reliability, even when not knowing the clean ground-truth data.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAlgorithmsArtifactsEvoked PotentialsReproducibility of ResultsArtifactElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialsIndependent component analysisTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID38072355
PMCPMC11636693

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.