MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367041624 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29920-2

Isolating sensory artifacts in the suprathreshold TMS-EEG signal over DLPFC

2023· article· en· W4367041624 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Poorganji, Reza Zomorrodi, Colin Hawco, Aron T. Hill, Itay Hadas, Christoph Zrenner, Tarek K. Rajji, Robert Chen, Daphne Voineskos, Daniel M. Blumberger, Zafiris J. Daskalakis

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Dementia Research AllianceUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareNational Institutes of HealthCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationBrightFocus FoundationFondation Brain CanadaWeston Brain InstituteUniversity of TorontoBiogen
KeywordsElectroencephalographySensory systemNeuroscienceSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceSpeech recognitionAudiologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Combined transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) is an effective way to evaluate neurophysiological processes at the level of the cortex. To further characterize the TMS-evoked potential (TEP) generated with TMS-EEG, beyond the motor cortex, we aimed to distinguish between cortical reactivity to TMS versus non-specific somatosensory and auditory co-activations using both single-pulse and paired-pulse protocols at suprathreshold stimulation intensities over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Fifteen right-handed healthy participants received six blocks of stimulation including single and paired TMS delivered as active-masked (i.e., TMS-EEG with auditory masking and foam spacing), active-unmasked (TMS-EEG without auditory masking and foam spacing) and sham (sham TMS coil). We evaluated cortical excitability following single-pulse TMS, and cortical inhibition following a paired-pulse paradigm (long-interval cortical inhibition (LICI)). Repeated measure ANOVAs revealed significant differences in mean cortical evoked activity (CEA) of active-masked, active-unmasked, and sham conditions for both the single-pulse (F(1.76, 24.63) = 21.88 , p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.61) and LICI (F(1.68, 23.49) = 10.09 , p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.42) protocols. Furthermore, global mean field amplitude (GMFA) differed significantly across the three conditions for both single-pulse (F(1.85, 25.89) = 24.68 , p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.64) and LICI (F(1.8, 25.16) = 14.29 , p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.5). Finally, only active LICI protocols but not sham stimulation ([active-masked (0.78 ± 0.16, P < 0.0001)], [active-unmasked (0.83 ± 0.25, P < 0.01)]) resulted in significant signal inhibition. While previous findings of a significant somatosensory and auditory contribution to the evoked EEG signal are replicated by our study, an artifact attenuated cortical reactivity can reliably be measured in the TMS-EEG signal with suprathreshold stimulation of DLPFC. Artifact attenuation can be accomplished using standard procedures, and even when masked, the level of cortical reactivity is still far above what is produced by sham stimulation. Our study illustrates that TMS-EEG of DLPFC remains a valid investigational tool.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207