ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Characterising the contribution of auditory and somatosensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials following stimulation of prefrontal, premotor, and parietal cortex.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. 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.
- 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
- Investigating the Effects of Repetitive Paired-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Visuomotor Training Using TMS-EEG.Brain topography · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) results in a series of deflections in electroencephalography (EEG) recordings known as a TMS-evoked potential (TEP). However, it remains unclear whether these responses reflect neural activity resulting from transcranial stimulation of the cortex, the sensory experiences of TMS, or a combination of the two. Across three experiments (total n = 135), we recorded EEG activity following TMS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, and parietal cortex as well as a sensory control condition (stimulation of the shoulder or electrical stimulation of the scalp with a click sound). We found that TEPs showed a stereotypical frontocentral N100/P200 complex following TMS of all cortical sites and control conditions, regardless of TMS intensity or the type of sensory control. In contrast, earlier TEPs (<60 ms) showed site-specific characteristics which were largest at the site of stimulation, although TEP topographies were distorted in a subgroup of individuals due to residual TMS-evoked muscle artefact despite cleaning with independent component analysis. Self-reported sensory experiences differed across sites, with prefrontal stimulation resulting in stronger auditory (click sound perception) and somatosensory input (scalp muscle twitch, discomfort) than premotor or parietal stimulation, a pattern that was reflected in the amplitude of later (N100/P200), but not earlier (<60 ms), TEP peak amplitudes. Later TEPs were also larger in individuals who experienced stronger click sound perception and, to a lesser extent, TMS-evoked scalp muscle twitches. Increasing click sound perception by removing auditory masking increased N100/P200 amplitudes without altering earlier peaks, an effect which was more prominent at sites with more successful masking. Together, these findings suggest that the frontocentral N100/P200 complex primarily represents a generalised sensory response resulting from TMS-related auditory and somatosensory input when present. In contrast, early TEP peaks likely primarily reflect activity resulting from transcranial stimulation of the cortex when artefacts were adequately accounted for. The results have important implications for designing and interpreting TEP studies, especially when comparing TEPs between stimulation sites and participant groups showing differences in sensory experiences following TMS.
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.