Analysing concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalographic data: A review and introduction to the open-source TESA software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concurrent use of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) is growing in popularity as a method for assessing various cortical properties such as excitability, oscillations and connectivity. However, this combination of methods is technically challenging, resulting in artifacts both during recording and following typical EEG analysis methods, which can distort the underlying neural signal. In this article, we review the causes of artifacts in EEG recordings resulting from TMS, as well as artifacts introduced during analysis (e.g. as the result of filtering over high-frequency, large amplitude artifacts). We then discuss methods for removing artifacts, and ways of designing pipelines to minimise analysis-related artifacts. Finally, we introduce the TMS-EEG signal analyser (TESA), an open-source extension for EEGLAB, which includes functions that are specific for TMS-EEG analysis, such as removing and interpolating the TMS pulse artifact, removing and minimising TMS-evoked muscle activity, and analysing TMS-evoked potentials. The aims of TESA are to provide users with easy access to current TMS-EEG analysis methods and to encourage direct comparisons of these methods and pipelines. It is hoped that providing open-source functions will aid in both improving and standardising analysis across the field of TMS-EEG research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".