ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
A Practical Preprocessing Pipeline for Concurrent TMS-iEEG: Critical Steps and Methodological Considerations.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with intracranial EEG (TMS-iEEG) has emerged as a powerful approach for probing the causal organization and dynamics of the human brain. Despite its promise, the presence of TMS-induced artifacts poses significant challenges for accurately characterizing and interpreting evoked neural responses. In this study, we present a practical preprocessing pipeline for single pulse TMS-iEEG data, incorporating key steps of re-referencing, filtering, artifact interpolation, and detrending. Using both real and simulated data, we systematically evaluated the effects of each step and compared alternative methodological choices. Our results demonstrate that this pipeline effectively attenuated various types of artifacts and noise, yielding cleaner signals for the subsequent analysis of intracranial TMS-evoked potentials (iTEPs). Moreover, we showed that methodological choices can substantially influence iTEPs outcomes. In particular, referencing methods might strongly affect iTEP morphology and amplitude, underscoring the importance of tailoring the referencing strategy to specific signal characteristics and research objectives. For filtering, we recommend a segment-based strategy, i.e., applying filters to data segments excluding the artifact window, to minimize distortion from abrupt TMS-related transients. Overall, this work represents an important step toward establishing a general preprocessing framework for TMS-iEEG data. We hope it encourages broader adoption and methodological development in concurrent TMS-iEEG research, ultimately advancing our understanding of brain organization and TMS mechanisms.
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.