ArticleNeuroImage2026
Recognizing EEG responses to active TMS vs. sham stimulations in different TMS-EEG datasets: A machine learning approach.
Article in NeuroImage, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with simultaneous Electroencephalogram (TMS-EEG) allows for the assessment of neurophysiological properties of cortical neurons. However, TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) can be affected by components unrelated to TMS direct neuronal activation. Accurate, automatic tools are therefore needed to establish the quality of TEPs. We defined innovative comparisons, including effects of both baseline and post-TMS responses, while employing a sequence-to-sequence machine learning model to objectively ascertain active TMS vs. sham stimulation responses. Two independent TMS-EEG datasets including TMS and several sham stimulation conditions were obtained from the left motor area of 33 healthy individuals (total: 27,590 trials across datasets). A Bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) machine learning network was used to label each time point of the EEG signals as pertaining to TMS or sham conditions. For TMS conditions, post-stimulus vs. baseline/pre-stimulus EEG comparisons yielded moderate (60 %-75 %) single-trial accuracy and high-accuracy (>75 %) for 20 trials across datasets. For sham conditions, post- vs. baseline/pre-stimulus EEG comparisons yielded lower accuracy rates than for TMS conditions, except for unmasked auditory stimulation. Baseline/pre-stimulus TMS vs. baseline/pre-stimulus sham EEG comparisons showed chance-level accuracy. Conversely, post-stimulus TMS vs. post-stimulus sham EEG comparisons had moderate (single trial) to high (20 trial) accuracy, except for TMS with and without the click noise masking. Consistently across datasets, TEPs after active TMS are discernible from various sham stimulations after few trials and at the single-subject level using a BiLSTM ML model. This approach offers objective criteria to support TEP authenticity, which may help address ongoing discussions about TEP characteristics in TMS-EEG studies.
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.