CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMotor Control and Adaptation

The correspondence between EMG and EEG measures of changes in cortical excitability following transcranial magnetic stimulation

Open access
Biabani, Mana, Fornito, Alex, Coxon, James P., Fulcher, Ben D., Rogasch, Nigel C.·2021·The Journal of Physiology
DOI 10.1113/jp280966

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Key points: TMS is commonly used to study excitatory/inhibitory neurotransmission in cortical circuits. Changes in cortical excitability following TMS are typically measured from hand (using EMG; limited to motor cortex) or scalp (using EEG); however, it is unclear whether these two measures represent the same activity when assessing motor cortex. We found that TMS‐EMG and TMS‐EEG measures of motor cortex excitability are differentially affected by sensory confounds at different time points, masking any actual relationship between them in the time domain. In the frequency domain, local high‐frequency oscillations in EEG recordings were minimally confounded by sensory artefacts and demonstrated strong correlations with EMG measures of cortical excitability across time, regardless of TMS intensity or waveform. Therefore, despite the effects of sensory artefacts, the two measures of motor cortex excitability share a response component, suggesting that they index a similar cortical activity and perhaps the same neuronal population. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a powerful tool for investigating cortical circuits. Changes in cortical excitability following TMS are typically assessed by measuring changes in either conditioned motor‐evoked potentials (MEPs) following paired‐pulse TMS over motor cortex or evoked potentials measured with electroencephalography following single‐pulse TMS (TEPs). However, it is unclear whether these two measures of cortical excitability index the same cortical response. Twenty‐four healthy participants received local and interhemispheric paired‐pulse TMS over motor cortex with eight inter‐pulse intervals, sub‐ and suprathreshold conditioning intensities, and two different pulse waveforms, while MEPs were recorded from a hand muscle. TEPs were also recorded in response to single‐pulse TMS using the conditioning pulse alone. The relationships between TEPs and conditioned‐MEPs were evaluated using metrics sensitive to both their magnitude at each time point and their overall shape across time. The impacts of undesired sensory potentials resulting from TMS pulse and muscle contractions were also assessed on both measures. Both conditioned‐MEPs and TEPs were sensitive to re‐afferent somatosensory activity following motor‐evoked responses, but over different post‐stimulus time points. Moreover, the amplitude of low‐frequency oscillations in TEPs was strongly correlated with the sensory potentials, whereas early and local high‐frequency responses showed minimal relationships. Accordingly, conditioned‐MEPs did not correlate with TEPs in the time domain but showed high shape similarity with the amplitude of high‐frequency oscillations in TEPs. Therefore, despite the effects of sensory confounds, the TEP and MEP measures share a response component, suggesting that they index a similar cortical response and perhaps the same neuronal populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jp280966

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • TEP quantification focused exclusively on early peaks (P30, N45, P60) to avoid sensory contributions to late components.

    “However, given the high likelihood of sensory contributions to the late components (Biabani et al. 2019, Conde et al. 2019, Biabani et al. 2021, Gordon et al. 2021, Rocchi et al. 2021, Biabani et al. 2024), TEP quantification focussed exclusively on the early peaks.”

    From Mild traumatic brain injury alters function in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a TMS-EEG study (2025) · cites this paper as Biabani et al. 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Di Lazzaro V, Rothwell J, Capogna M. Noninvasive stimulation of the human brain: activation of multiple cortical circuits. The Neuroscientist 2018;24(3):246-60.
  2. Ilmoniemi RJ, Virtanen J, Ruohonen J, Karhu J, Aronen HJ, Näätänen R, et al. Neuronal responses to magnetic stimulation reveal cortical reactivity and connectivity. Neuroreport 1997;8(16):3537-40.
  3. Rothwell JC, Hallett M, Berardelli A, Eisen A, Rossini P, Paulus W. Magnetic stimulation: motor evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 1999;52:97-103.
  4. Fuhr P, Agostino R, Hallett M. Spinal motor neuron excitability during the silent period after cortical stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section 1991;81(4):257-62.
  5. Wiegel P, Niemann N, Rothwell J, Leukel C. Evidence for a subcortical contribution to intracortical facilitation. The European journal of neuroscience 2018;47(11):1311-9.
  6. Ziemann U, Netz J, Szelényi A, Hömberg V. Spinal and supraspinal mechanisms contribute to the silent period in the contracting soleus muscle after transcranial magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Neuroscience letters 1993;156(1-2):167-71.
  7. Foster AC, Kemp JA. Glutamate-and GABA-based CNS therapeutics. Current opinion in pharmacology 2006;6(1):7-17.
  8. Nakamura H, Kitagawa H, Kawaguchi Y, Tsuji H. Intracortical facilitation and inhibition after transcranial magnetic stimulation in conscious humans. The Journal of physiology 1997;498(3):817-23.
  9. Ni Z, Gunraj C, Nelson AJ, Yeh I-J, Castillo G, Hoque T, et al. Two phases of interhemispheric inhibition between motor related cortical areas and the primary motor cortex in human. Cerebral Cortex 2008;19(7):1654-65.
  10. Bonato C, Miniussi C, Rossini P. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and cortical evoked potentials: a TMS/EEG co-registration study. Clinical neurophysiology 2006;117(8):1699-707.
  11. Lioumis P, Kičić D, Savolainen P, Mäkelä JP, Kähkönen S. Reproducibility of TMS-Evoked EEG responses. Human brain mapping 2009;30(4):1387-96.
  12. Ilmoniemi RJ, Kičić D. Methodology for combined TMS and EEG. Brain topography 2010;22(4):233.
  13. Komssi S, Kähkönen S, Ilmoniemi RJ. The effect of stimulus intensity on brain responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Human brain mapping 2004;21(3):154-64.
  14. Jackson AF, Bolger DJ. The neurophysiological bases of EEG and EEG measurement: A review for the rest of us. Psychophysiology 2014;51(11):1061-71.
  15. Conde V, Tomasevic L, Akopian I, Stanek K, Saturnino GB, Thielscher A, et al. The non-transcranial TMS-evoked potential is an inherent source of ambiguity in TMS-EEG studies. Neuroimage 2019;185:300-12.
  16. Premoli I, Castellanos N, Rivolta D, Belardinelli P, Bajo R, Zipser C, et al. TMS-EEG signatures of GABAergic neurotransmission in the human cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 2014;34(16):5603-12.
  17. Ziemann U, Reis J, Schwenkreis P, Rosanova M, Strafella A, Badawy R, et al. TMS and drugs revisited 2014. Clinical Neurophysiology 2015;126(10):1847-68.
  18. Mäki H, Ilmoniemi RJ. The relationship between peripheral and early cortical activation induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroscience letters 2010;478(1):24- 8.
  19. Rogasch NC, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB. Mechanisms underlying long-interval cortical inhibition in the human motor cortex: a TMS-EEG study. Journal of Neurophysiology 2013;109(1):89-98.
  20. Opie GM, Rogasch NC, Goldsworthy MR, Ridding MC, Semmler JG. Investigating TMS-EEG indices of long-interval intracortical inhibition at different interstimulus intervals. Brain stimulation 2017;10(1):65-74.
  21. Premoli I, Rivolta D, Espenhahn S, Castellanos N, Belardinelli P, Ziemann U, et al. Characterization of GABAB-receptor mediated neurotransmission in the human cortex by paired-pulse TMS-EEG. Neuroimage 2014;103:152-62.
  22. Premoli I, Bergmann TO, Fecchio M, Rosanova M, Biondi A, Belardinelli P, et al. The impact of GABAergic drugs on TMS-induced brain oscillations in human motor cortex. Neuroimage 2017;163:1-12.
  23. Van Der Werf YD, Paus T. The neural response to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. I. Intracortical and cortico-cortical contributions. Experimental brain research 2006;175(2):231-45.
  24. Veniero D, Brignani D, Thut G, Miniussi C. Alphageneration as basic responsesignature to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) targeting the human resting motor cortex: A TMS/EEG coregistration study. Psychophysiology 2011;48(10):1381-9.
  25. Madsen KH, Karabanov AN, Krohne LG, Safeldt MG, Tomasevic L, Siebner HR. No trace of phase: Corticomotor excitability is not tuned by phase of pericentral mu-rhythm. Brain stimulation 2019;12(5):1261-70.
  26. Sauseng P, Klimesch W, Gerloff C, Hummel FC. Spontaneous locally restricted EEG alpha activity determines cortical excitability in the motor cortex. Neuropsychologia 2009;47(1):284-8.
  27. Zarkowski P, Shin CJ, Dang T, Russo J, Avery D. EEG and the Variance of Motor Evoked Potential Amplitude. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 2006;37(3):247-51.
  28. Berger B, Minarik T, Liuzzi G, Hummel FC, Sauseng P. EEG Oscillatory Phase- Dependent Markers of Corticospinal Excitability in the Resting Brain. BioMed Research International 2014;2014:936096.
  29. Schutter DJ, Hortensius R. Brain oscillations and frequency-dependent modulation of cortical excitability. Brain stimulation 2011;4(2):97-103.
  30. Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A, Group SoTC. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical neurophysiology 2009;120(12):2008-39.
  31. Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R, Cohen L, Daskalakis Z, Di Iorio R, et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an IFCN Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology 2015;126(6):1071-107.
  32. Saatlou FH, Rogasch NC, McNair NA, Biabani M, Pillen SD, Marshall TR, et al. MAGIC: An open-source MATLAB toolbox for external control of transcranial magnetic stimulation devices. Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2018;11(5):1189-91.
  33. Ter Braack EM, de Vos CC, van Putten MJ. Masking the auditory evoked potential in TMS-EEG: a comparison of various methods. Brain topography 2015;28(3):520-8.
  34. Biabani M, Fornito A, Mutanen T, Morrow J, Rogasch N. Sensory contamination in TMS-EEG recordings: Can we isolate TMS-evoked neural activity? Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2019;12(2):473.
  35. Rogasch NC, Sullivan C, Thomson RH, Rose NS, Bailey NW, Fitzgerald PB, et al. Analysing concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalographic data: A review and introduction to the open-source TESA software. Neuroimage 2017;147:934-51.
  36. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of neuroscience methods 2004;134(1):9-21.
  37. Perrin F, Pernier J, Bertrand O, Echallier J. Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology 1989;72(2):184-7.
  38. Kayser J, Tenke CE. Principal components analysis of Laplacian waveforms as a generic method for identifying ERP generator patterns: II. Adequacy of low-density estimates. Clinical neurophysiology 2006;117(2):369-80.
  39. Pellicciari MC, Veniero D, Miniussi C. Characterizing the cortical oscillatory response to TMS pulse. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience 2017;11:38.
  40. Neuper C, Wörtz M, Pfurtscheller G. ERD/ERS patterns reflecting sensorimotor activation and deactivation. Progress in brain research 2006;159:211-22.
  41. Jensen O, Goel P, Kopell N, Pohja M, Hari R, Ermentrout B. On the human sensorimotor-cortex beta rhythm: sources and modeling. Neuroimage 2005;26(2):347-55.
  42. Trick T. Theory and application of digital signal processing. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1975;23(4):394-5.
  43. Homan RW, Herman J, Purdy P. Cerebral location of international 10-20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology 1987;66(4):376- 82.
  44. Okamoto M, Dan H, Sakamoto K, Takeo K, Shimizu K, Kohno S, et al. Three- dimensional probabilistic anatomical cranio-cerebral correlation via the international 10-20 system oriented for transcranial functional brain mapping. Neuroimage 2004;21(1):99-111.
  45. Charter RA, Larsen BS. Fisher's z to r. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1983;43(1):41-2.
  46. Dunn OJ, Clark V. Correlation coefficients measured on the same individuals. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1969;64(325):366-77.
  47. Mutanen TP, Biabani M, Sarvas J, Ilmoniemi RJ, Rogasch NC. Source-based artifact- rejection techniques available in TESA, an open-source TMS-EEG toolbox. Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 2020;13(5):1349-51.
  48. Blair RC, Karniski W. An alternative method for significance testing of waveform difference potentials. Psychophysiology 1993;30(5):518-24.
  49. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological) 1995;57(1):289-300.
  50. Farzan F, Barr MS, Hoppenbrouwers SS, Fitzgerald PB, Chen R, Pascual-Leone A, et al. The EEG correlates of the TMS-induced EMG silent period in humans. Neuroimage 2013;83:120-34.
  51. Bonnard M, Spieser L, Meziane HB, De Graaf JB, Pailhous J. Prior intention can locally tune inhibitory processes in the primary motor cortex: direct evidence from combined TMSEEG. European Journal of Neuroscience 2009;30(5):913-23.
  52. Kičić D, Lioumis P, Ilmoniemi R, Nikulin VV. Bilateral changes in excitability of sensorimotor cortices during unilateral movement: combined electroencephalographic and transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Neuroscience 2008;152(4):1119-29.
  53. Wiegel P, Niemann N, Rothwell JC, Leukel C. Evidence for a subcortical contribution to intracortical facilitation. European Journal of Neuroscience 2018;47(11):1311-9.
  54. Herrmann CS, Rach S, Vosskuhl J, Strüber D. Time-frequency analysis of event- related potentials: a brief tutorial. Brain topography 2014;27(4):438-50.
  55. Hussain SJ, Claudino L, Bönstrup M, Norato G, Cruciani G, Thompson R, et al. Sensorimotor Oscillatory Phase-Power Interaction Gates Resting Human Corticospinal Output. Cerebral Cortex 2019;29(9):3766-77.
  56. Huber R, Mäki H, Rosanova M, Casarotto S, Canali P, Casali AG, et al. Human cortical excitability increases with time awake. Cerebral cortex 2013;23(2):1-7.
  57. Darmani G, Bergmann TO, Zipser C, Baur D, MüllerDahlhaus F, Ziemann U. Effects of antiepileptic drugs on cortical excitability in humans: a TMSEMG and TMSEEG study. Human brain mapping 2019;40(4):1276-89.
  58. Rogasch NC, Zipser C, Darmani G, Mutanen TP, Biabani M, Zrenner C, et al. The effects of NMDA receptor blockade on TMS-evoked EEG potentials from prefrontal and parietal cortex. Scientific reports 2020;10(1):1-12.
  59. Sarasso S, Boly M, Napolitani M, Gosseries O, Charland-Verville V, Casarotto S, et al. Consciousness and complexity during unresponsiveness induced by propofol, xenon, and ketamine. Current Biology 2015;25(23):3099-105.
  60. Zarkowski P, Shin C, Dang T, Russo J, Avery D. EEG and the variance of motor evoked potential amplitude. Clinical EEG and neuroscience 2006;37(3):247-51.
  61. Mäki H, Ilmoniemi RJ. EEG oscillations and magnetically evoked motor potentials reflect motor system excitability in overlapping neuronal populations. Clinical neurophysiology 2010;121(4):492-501.
  62. Iscan Z, Nazarova M, Fedele T, Blagovechtchenski E, Nikulin VV. Pre-stimulus alpha oscillations and inter-subject variability of motor evoked potentials in single-and paired-pulse TMS paradigms. Frontiers in human neuroscience 2016;10:504.
  63. Cliff OM, Novelli L, Fulcher BD, Shine JM, Lizier JT. Exact inference of linear dependence between multiple autocorrelated time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:200303887 2020.
  64. Ferbert A, Priori A, Rothwell J, Day B, Colebatch J, Marsden C. Interhemispheric inhibition of the human motor cortex. The Journal of physiology 1992;453(1):525-46.
  65. Daskalakis ZJ, Christensen BK, Fitzgerald PB, Roshan L, Chen R. The mechanisms of interhemispheric inhibition in the human motor cortex. The Journal of physiology 2002;543(1):317-26.
  66. Komssi S, Aronen HJ, Huttunen J, Kesäniemi M, Soinne L, Nikouline VV, et al. Ipsi- and contralateral EEG reactions to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology 2002;113(2):175-84.
  67. Litvak V, Komssi S, Scherg M, Hoechstetter K, Classen J, Zaaroor M, et al. Artifact correction and source analysis of early electroencephalographic responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation over primary motor cortex. Neuroimage 2007;37(1):56-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Biabani, M., Fornito, A., Coxon, J. P., Fulcher, B. D., & Rogasch, N. C.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Biabani, Mana
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-05
Volume
599
Issue
11
Pages
2907-2932
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
DOI
10.1113/jp280966
OpenAlex
W3132149634
Cited by
41
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Journal of Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (180100741)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
transcranial magnetic stimulation, motor cortex excitability, motor evoked potentials, TEPS, paired-pulse TMS, high-frequency oscillations, low-frequency oscillations, excitation-inhibition balance, interhemispheric inhibition, pulse waveform, conditioning intensity, interpulse interval
MeSH terms
Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Motor Cortex, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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