Transcranial evoked potentials can be reliably recorded with active electrodes

Marco Mancuso; Valerio Sveva; Alessandro Cruciani; Katlyn Brown; Jaime Ibáñez; Vishal Rawji; Elias Casula; Isabella Premoli; Sasha D’Ambrosio; John Rothwell; Lorenzo Rocchi

doi:10.3390/BRAINSCI11020145

Transcranial evoked potentials can be reliably recorded with active electrodes

Marco Mancuso, Valerio Sveva, Alessandro Cruciani, Katlyn Brown, Jaime Ibáñez, Vishal Rawji, Elias Casula, Isabella Premoli, Sasha D’Ambrosio, John Rothwell, Lorenzo Rocchi^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Electroencephalographic (EEG) signals evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are usually recorded with passive electrodes (PE). Active electrode (AE) systems have recently become widely available; compared to PE, they allow for easier electrode preparation and a higher-quality signal, due to the preamplification at the electrode stage, which reduces electrical line noise. The performance between the AE and PE can differ, especially with fast EEG voltage changes, which can easily occur with TMS-EEG; however, a systematic comparison in the TMS-EEG setting has not been made. Therefore, we recorded TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) in a group of healthy subjects in two sessions, one using PE and the other using AE. We stimulated the left primary motor cortex and right medial prefrontal cortex and used two different approaches to remove early TMS artefacts, Independent Component Analysis and Signal Space Projection—Source Informed Recovery. We assessed statistical differences in amplitude and topography of TEPs, and their similarity, by means of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). We also tested the capability of each system to approximate the final TEP waveform with a reduced number of trials. The results showed that TEPs recorded with AE and PE do not differ in amplitude and topography, and only few electrodes showed a lower-than-expected CCC between the two methods of amplification. We conclude that AE are a viable solution for TMS-EEG recording.

Original language	English
Article number	145
Pages (from-to)	1-16
Number of pages	16
Journal	Brain Sciences
Volume	11
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3390/BRAINSCI11020145
Publication status	Published - Feb 2021

Keywords

Active electrodes
EEG artefacts
Electroencephalography
Independent component analysis
Motor evoked potentials
Neurophysiology
TMS-EEG
Transcranial evoked potentials
Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Access to Document

10.3390/BRAINSCI11020145

Cite this

@article{9c9cc6870e374a84b3b830d544caa90e,

title = "Transcranial evoked potentials can be reliably recorded with active electrodes",

abstract = "Electroencephalographic (EEG) signals evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are usually recorded with passive electrodes (PE). Active electrode (AE) systems have recently become widely available; compared to PE, they allow for easier electrode preparation and a higher-quality signal, due to the preamplification at the electrode stage, which reduces electrical line noise. The performance between the AE and PE can differ, especially with fast EEG voltage changes, which can easily occur with TMS-EEG; however, a systematic comparison in the TMS-EEG setting has not been made. Therefore, we recorded TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) in a group of healthy subjects in two sessions, one using PE and the other using AE. We stimulated the left primary motor cortex and right medial prefrontal cortex and used two different approaches to remove early TMS artefacts, Independent Component Analysis and Signal Space Projection—Source Informed Recovery. We assessed statistical differences in amplitude and topography of TEPs, and their similarity, by means of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). We also tested the capability of each system to approximate the final TEP waveform with a reduced number of trials. The results showed that TEPs recorded with AE and PE do not differ in amplitude and topography, and only few electrodes showed a lower-than-expected CCC between the two methods of amplification. We conclude that AE are a viable solution for TMS-EEG recording.",

keywords = "Active electrodes, EEG artefacts, Electroencephalography, Independent component analysis, Motor evoked potentials, Neurophysiology, TMS-EEG, Transcranial evoked potentials, Transcranial magnetic stimulation",

author = "Marco Mancuso and Valerio Sveva and Alessandro Cruciani and Katlyn Brown and Jaime Ib{\'a}{\~n}ez and Vishal Rawji and Elias Casula and Isabella Premoli and Sasha D{\textquoteright}Ambrosio and John Rothwell and Lorenzo Rocchi",

note = "Funding Information: Acknowledgments: LR was partly supported by HCA International ltd. SD was supported by the Epilepsy Society and UCB. UCB had no editorial control and no input or decision over the selection of authors or topics discussed. Funding Information: This research was funded by the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute and partially by CONACYT/SEP Research Grant 167673 and by Estimulo a la Investigacion Medica ?Miguel Aleman Valdes? 2018 (to J.A.O.-R.), by CONACYT grant FC2016/2803 (to A.G.-H.) and by the Autonomous University of Baja California to J.G.V.-J. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2021",

month = feb,

doi = "10.3390/BRAINSCI11020145",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "1--16",

journal = "Brain Sciences",

issn = "2076-3425",

publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transcranial evoked potentials can be reliably recorded with active electrodes

AU - Mancuso, Marco

AU - Sveva, Valerio

AU - Cruciani, Alessandro

AU - Brown, Katlyn

AU - Ibáñez, Jaime

AU - Rawji, Vishal

AU - Casula, Elias

AU - Premoli, Isabella

AU - D’Ambrosio, Sasha

AU - Rothwell, John

AU - Rocchi, Lorenzo

N1 - Funding Information: Acknowledgments: LR was partly supported by HCA International ltd. SD was supported by the Epilepsy Society and UCB. UCB had no editorial control and no input or decision over the selection of authors or topics discussed. Funding Information: This research was funded by the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute and partially by CONACYT/SEP Research Grant 167673 and by Estimulo a la Investigacion Medica ?Miguel Aleman Valdes? 2018 (to J.A.O.-R.), by CONACYT grant FC2016/2803 (to A.G.-H.) and by the Autonomous University of Baja California to J.G.V.-J. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/2

Y1 - 2021/2

N2 - Electroencephalographic (EEG) signals evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are usually recorded with passive electrodes (PE). Active electrode (AE) systems have recently become widely available; compared to PE, they allow for easier electrode preparation and a higher-quality signal, due to the preamplification at the electrode stage, which reduces electrical line noise. The performance between the AE and PE can differ, especially with fast EEG voltage changes, which can easily occur with TMS-EEG; however, a systematic comparison in the TMS-EEG setting has not been made. Therefore, we recorded TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) in a group of healthy subjects in two sessions, one using PE and the other using AE. We stimulated the left primary motor cortex and right medial prefrontal cortex and used two different approaches to remove early TMS artefacts, Independent Component Analysis and Signal Space Projection—Source Informed Recovery. We assessed statistical differences in amplitude and topography of TEPs, and their similarity, by means of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). We also tested the capability of each system to approximate the final TEP waveform with a reduced number of trials. The results showed that TEPs recorded with AE and PE do not differ in amplitude and topography, and only few electrodes showed a lower-than-expected CCC between the two methods of amplification. We conclude that AE are a viable solution for TMS-EEG recording.

AB - Electroencephalographic (EEG) signals evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are usually recorded with passive electrodes (PE). Active electrode (AE) systems have recently become widely available; compared to PE, they allow for easier electrode preparation and a higher-quality signal, due to the preamplification at the electrode stage, which reduces electrical line noise. The performance between the AE and PE can differ, especially with fast EEG voltage changes, which can easily occur with TMS-EEG; however, a systematic comparison in the TMS-EEG setting has not been made. Therefore, we recorded TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) in a group of healthy subjects in two sessions, one using PE and the other using AE. We stimulated the left primary motor cortex and right medial prefrontal cortex and used two different approaches to remove early TMS artefacts, Independent Component Analysis and Signal Space Projection—Source Informed Recovery. We assessed statistical differences in amplitude and topography of TEPs, and their similarity, by means of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). We also tested the capability of each system to approximate the final TEP waveform with a reduced number of trials. The results showed that TEPs recorded with AE and PE do not differ in amplitude and topography, and only few electrodes showed a lower-than-expected CCC between the two methods of amplification. We conclude that AE are a viable solution for TMS-EEG recording.

KW - Active electrodes

KW - EEG artefacts

KW - Electroencephalography

KW - Independent component analysis

KW - Motor evoked potentials

KW - Neurophysiology

KW - TMS-EEG

KW - Transcranial evoked potentials

KW - Transcranial magnetic stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100896956&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/BRAINSCI11020145

DO - 10.3390/BRAINSCI11020145

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85100896956

SN - 2076-3425

VL - 11

SP - 1

EP - 16

JO - Brain Sciences

JF - Brain Sciences

IS - 2

M1 - 145

ER -

Transcranial evoked potentials can be reliably recorded with active electrodes

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this