SOURCE: Clinical Neurophysiology. 140:98-109, 2022 Aug.
AUTHORS: Chowdhury NS; Rogasch NC; Chiang AKI; Millard SK; Skippen P; Chang WJ; Bilska K; Si E; Seminowicz DA; Schabrun SM
OBJECTIVE: It remains unclear to what extent Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-evoked potentials (TEPs) reflect sensory (auditory and somatosensory) potentials as opposed to cortical excitability. The present study aimed to determine; a) the extent to which sensory potentials contaminate TEPs using a spatially-matched sham condition, and b) whether sensory potentials reflect auditory or somatosensory potentials alone, or a combination of the two.
METHODS: Twenty healthy participants received active or sham stimulation, with the latter consisting a sham coil click combined with scalp electrical stimulation. Two additional conditions i) electrical stimulation and ii) auditory stimulation alone, were included in a subset of 13 participants.
RESULTS: Signals from active and sham stimulation were correlated in spatial and temporal domains > 55 ms post-stimulation. Relative to auditory or electrical stimulation alone, sham stimulation resulted in a) larger potentials, b) stronger correlations with active stimulation and c) a signal that was not a linear sum of electrical and auditory stimulation alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Sensory potentials can confound interpretations of TEPs at timepoints > 55 ms post-stimulation. Furthermore, TEP contamination cannot be explained by auditory or somatosensory potentials alone, but instead reflects a non-linear interaction between both.
SIGNIFICANCE: Future studies may benefit from controlling for sensory contamination using spatially-matched sham conditions, and which consist of combined auditory and somatosensory stimulation.