ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative study to assess synchronisation methods for combined simultaneous EEG and TMS acquisition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Session Frequency in EEG Biofeedback: A Comparative Study of Protocol Dynamics and Neuromuscular Adaptation in Elite Judo Athletes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Trial
- The lab streaming layer for synchronized multimodal recording.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
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
Electroencephalography (EEG) combined with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) provides valuable insights into cortical excitability and connectivity but faces challenges including data artefacts, limited spatial resolution, and the need for standardised synchronisation protocols. This study evaluates three TMS-EEG synchronisation paradigms using the Lab Streaming Layer (LSL) to analyse time intervals and latency. Paradigm 1 employs a software-based approach with simultaneous pulses to both EEG and TMS devices. Paradigm 2, another software-based method, transmits a pulse to the TMS device first, followed by the EEG amplifier. Paradigm 3 uses a hardware-based approach where pulses generated by the TMS device are directly routed to the EEG amplifier. Synchronisation was assessed at frequencies of 1, 5, 10, and 20 Hz, with each frequency tested ten times using 100-pulse trains. Results demonstrate that Paradigm 3 provides superior performance, showing narrower distributions, lower time interval error (TIE) and latency values, and higher precision and accuracy. However, it requires a high sample rate from the EEG amplifier and limits additional device integration. Paradigms 1 and 2, while exhibiting greater variability and lower precision, allow for additional device integration and inter-pulse control via LSL. All paradigms achieved low latency and timing error values within acceptable limits for EEG applications, affirming their viability. The choice of synchronisation paradigm has a significant impact on performance, and the current lack of standardisation in TMS-EEG studies presents ongoing challenges. These findings underscore the necessity of selecting an appropriate synchronisation method based on specific study requirements and resources, potentially advancing standardised protocols for TMS and enhancing the reliability of TMS-EEG research.
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.