ArticleBrain stimulation
Measuring the accuracy of ICA-based artifact removal from TMS-evoked potentials.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological Choices Matter: A Systematic Comparison of TMS-EEG Studies Targeting the Primary Motor Cortex.Human brain mapping · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Noninvasive Biomarkers for Assessing the Excitatory/Inhibitory Imbalance in Children with Epilepsy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Decoding dynamic brain networks in Parkinson's disease with temporal attention.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Steady-State Visual Evoked Potential-Based Brain-Computer Interface System for Enhanced Human Activity Monitoring and Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Changes in Cortical Activation by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Due to Coil Rotation Are Not Attributable to Cranial Muscle Activation.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Extracting reproducible subject-specific MEG evoked responses with independent component analysis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Characterising the contribution of auditory and somatosensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials following stimulation of prefrontal, premotor, and parietal cortex.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- A simulation study: comparing independent component analysis and signal-space projection - source-informed reconstruction for rejecting muscle artifacts evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.