Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.

The ability to interpret transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked electroencephalography (EEG) potentials (TEPs) is limited by artifacts, such as auditory evoked responses produced by discharge of the TMS coil. TEPs generated from direct cortical stimulation should vary in their topographical...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Michael Freedberg, Jack A Reeves, Sara J Hussain, Kareem A Zaghloul, Eric M Wassermann
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216185
id doaj-a28b0434b86549eda013583389bc3ce2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a28b0434b86549eda013583389bc3ce22021-03-03T21:20:41ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01151e021618510.1371/journal.pone.0216185Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.Michael FreedbergJack A ReevesSara J HussainKareem A ZaghloulEric M WassermannThe ability to interpret transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked electroencephalography (EEG) potentials (TEPs) is limited by artifacts, such as auditory evoked responses produced by discharge of the TMS coil. TEPs generated from direct cortical stimulation should vary in their topographical activity pattern according to stimulation site and differ from responses to sham stimulation. Responses that do not show these effects are likely to be artifactual. In 20 healthy volunteers, we delivered active and sham TMS to the right prefrontal, left primary motor, and left posterior parietal cortex and compared the waveform similarity of TEPs between stimulation sites and active and sham TMS using a cosine similarity-based analysis method. We identified epochs after the stimulus when the spatial pattern of TMS-evoked activation showed greater than random similarity between stimulation sites and sham vs. active TMS, indicating the presence of a dominant artifact. To do this, we binarized the derivatives of the TEPs recorded from 30 EEG channels and calculated cosine similarity between conditions at each time point with millisecond resolution. Only TEP components occurring before approximately 80 ms differed across stimulation sites and between active and sham, indicating site and condition-specific responses. We therefore conclude that, in the absence of noise masking or other measures to decrease neural artifact, TEP components before about 80 ms can be safely interpreted as stimulation location-specific responses to TMS, but components beyond this latency should be interpreted with caution due to high similarity in their topographical activity pattern.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216185
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Michael Freedberg
Jack A Reeves
Sara J Hussain
Kareem A Zaghloul
Eric M Wassermann
spellingShingle Michael Freedberg
Jack A Reeves
Sara J Hussain
Kareem A Zaghloul
Eric M Wassermann
Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Michael Freedberg
Jack A Reeves
Sara J Hussain
Kareem A Zaghloul
Eric M Wassermann
author_sort Michael Freedberg
title Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
title_short Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
title_full Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
title_fullStr Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
title_full_unstemmed Identifying site- and stimulation-specific TMS-evoked EEG potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
title_sort identifying site- and stimulation-specific tms-evoked eeg potentials using a quantitative cosine similarity metric.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description The ability to interpret transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked electroencephalography (EEG) potentials (TEPs) is limited by artifacts, such as auditory evoked responses produced by discharge of the TMS coil. TEPs generated from direct cortical stimulation should vary in their topographical activity pattern according to stimulation site and differ from responses to sham stimulation. Responses that do not show these effects are likely to be artifactual. In 20 healthy volunteers, we delivered active and sham TMS to the right prefrontal, left primary motor, and left posterior parietal cortex and compared the waveform similarity of TEPs between stimulation sites and active and sham TMS using a cosine similarity-based analysis method. We identified epochs after the stimulus when the spatial pattern of TMS-evoked activation showed greater than random similarity between stimulation sites and sham vs. active TMS, indicating the presence of a dominant artifact. To do this, we binarized the derivatives of the TEPs recorded from 30 EEG channels and calculated cosine similarity between conditions at each time point with millisecond resolution. Only TEP components occurring before approximately 80 ms differed across stimulation sites and between active and sham, indicating site and condition-specific responses. We therefore conclude that, in the absence of noise masking or other measures to decrease neural artifact, TEP components before about 80 ms can be safely interpreted as stimulation location-specific responses to TMS, but components beyond this latency should be interpreted with caution due to high similarity in their topographical activity pattern.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216185
work_keys_str_mv AT michaelfreedberg identifyingsiteandstimulationspecifictmsevokedeegpotentialsusingaquantitativecosinesimilaritymetric
AT jackareeves identifyingsiteandstimulationspecifictmsevokedeegpotentialsusingaquantitativecosinesimilaritymetric
AT sarajhussain identifyingsiteandstimulationspecifictmsevokedeegpotentialsusingaquantitativecosinesimilaritymetric
AT kareemazaghloul identifyingsiteandstimulationspecifictmsevokedeegpotentialsusingaquantitativecosinesimilaritymetric
AT ericmwassermann identifyingsiteandstimulationspecifictmsevokedeegpotentialsusingaquantitativecosinesimilaritymetric
_version_ 1714817371837825024