ArticleScientific reports2026
Investigating the effects of TMS-related somatosensory inputs on TMS-evoked potentials provides evidence against significant interaction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography (EEG) has emerged as a non-invasive technique to probe cortical responsivity. However, interpreting TMS-EEG data is challenging due to sensory inputs generated by TMS, which cause peripherally evoked potentials (PEPs) that overlap with TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). These sensory inputs may also modulate the cortical response, potentially distorting TEPs. To address this and evaluate methods for reducing PEP contamination, we compared two sham designs: a "PEP saturation" method, which delivers high-intensity somatosensory stimuli in both sham and real TMS to saturate PEPs in both conditions, and a "PEP individualized matching stimulus intensity calibration" method, which individually adjusts stimulus intensity to match the PEP amplitude of real TMS. In both conditions, the PEPs from sham and real TMS conditions should match, enabling the subtraction of this confounder. If the TEPs after this subtraction were not different between the two conditions this would indicate the absence of a relevant interaction between PEPs and TEPs, justifying the removal of PEPs from TEPs by subtraction. Our results showed no significant difference in TEPs within 110 ms post-stimulation after sham subtraction regardless of the sham protocol, and whether stimulating the primary motor cortex or the supplementary motor area. These findings provide evidence for the absence of a relevant interaction between TMS-related somatosensory input and TEPs, and indicate the appropriateness of the two sham protocols in removing PEPs from the TMS-EEG response.
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.