Cited by 312Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesBlind Source Separation Techniques

Removing artefacts from TMS-EEG recordings using independent component analysis: importance for assessing prefrontal and motor cortex network properties

Rogasch, Nigel C., Thomson, Richard H., Farzan, Faranak, Fitzgibbon, Bernadette M., Bailey, Neil W., Hernandez-Pavon, Julio C., Daskalakis, Zafiris J., Fitzgerald, Paul B.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Introduction The combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) is emerging as a powerful tool for causally investigating cortical mechanisms and networks. However, various artefacts contaminate TMS-EEG recordings, particularly over regions such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The aim of this study was to substantiate removal of artefacts from TMS-EEG recordings following stimulation of the DLPFC and motor cortex using independent component analysis (ICA). Methods 36 healthy volunteers (30.8 ± 9 years, 9 female) received 75 single TMS pulses to the left DLPFC or left motor cortex while EEG was recorded from 57 electrodes. A subset of 9 volunteers also received 50 sham pulses. The large TMS artefact and early muscle activity (-2 to ~15 ms) were removed using interpolation and the remaining EEG signal was processed in two separate ICA runs using the FastICA algorithm. Five sub-types of TMS-related artefacts were manually identified: remaining muscle artefacts, decay artefacts, blink artefacts, auditory-evoked potentials and other noise-related artefacts. The cause of proposed blink and auditory-evoked potentials was assessed by concatenating known artefacts (i.e. voluntary blinks or auditory-evoked potentials resulting from sham TMS) to the TMS trials before ICA and evaluating grouping of resultant independent components (ICs). Finally, we assessed the effect of removing specific artefact types on TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) and TMS-evoked oscillations. Results Over DLPFC, ICs from proposed muscle and decay artefacts correlated with TMS-evoked muscle activity size, whereas proposed TMS-evoked blink ICs combined with voluntary blinks and auditory ICs with auditory-evoked potentials from sham TMS. Individual artefact sub-types characteristically distorted each measure of DLPFC function across the scalp. When free of artefact, TEPs and TMS-evoked oscillations could be measured following DLPFC stimulation. Importantly, characteristic TEPs following motor cortex stimulation (N15, P30, N45, P60, N100) could be recovered from artefactual data, corroborating the reliability of ICA-based artefact correction. Conclusions Various different artefacts contaminate TMS-EEG recordings over the DLPFC and motor cortex. However, these artefacts can be removed with apparent minimal impact on neural activity using ICA, allowing the study of TMS-evoked cortical network properties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.037

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogasch, N. C., Thomson, R. H., Farzan, F., Fitzgibbon, B. M., Bailey, N. W., Hernandez-Pavon, J. C., Daskalakis, Z. J., & Fitzgerald, P. B.
Affiliations
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Rogasch, Nigel C.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
101
Pages
425-439
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969040087
Cited by
309
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • BrainsWay
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Blind Source Separation Techniques
Keywords
TMS-EEG, artifact removal, independent component analysis, TMS-evoked potentials, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, motor cortex, auditory evoked potentials, FastICA, EEG signal processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Artifacts, Prefrontal Cortex, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review