No abstract

Real TMS of motor cortex results in cortical responses significantly different from realistic sham. These differences very likely reflect to a significant extent direct activation of neurons, rather than sensory evoked activity.

A recent study by Conde, Tomasevic et al. (2019) [1] puts a spotlight on the subtleties of experimental design and analysis of studies involving TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs), specifically focusing on the challenge of disentangling genuine cortical responses to TMS from those resulting from concomitant sensory activation. This is a relevant topic that the TMSeEEG community has previously identified [2] and addressed with different strategies [3e6]. Based on the similarity of the evoked EEG responses they obtained in real TMS at different sites and in sham conditions (auditory and somatosensory scalp stimulation), the authors of [1] inferred that TEPs can be significantly contaminated by the effects of concurrent, non-transcranial stimulation.We acknowledge this is a valuable reminder to the TMS-EEG community; however, we contend that another fundamental implication of the work by Conde, Tomasevic and colleagues [1] -only incidentally mentioned at the end of their discussion e is that the evoked responses they obtain from both real TMS and sham conditions are substantially different from the TEPs reported in many of the previous studies (see, for example [7e11]). This discrepancy offers a timely opportunity to focus on the issue of the reproducibility of TEPs across laboratories and, most important, can encourage a constructive debate within the whole TMSeEEG community towards the optimization of shared procedures to obtain genuine responses to TMS.In this vein, Fig. 1 directly compares the TEPs reported in Ref.[1] with others previously published in different studies taken as a reference by Conde, Tomasevic and colleagues [1].The inspection of Fig. 1 clearly shows that it is possible to effectively trigger high-amplitude, sharply rising early (<50 ms) components and overall TEP wave-shapes that are specific for the angle and site of stimulation and that are very different from those obtained in Ref. [1]. This simple comparison highlights a general problem of reproducibility and offers an excellent opportunity to discuss two critical steps in TMSeEEG data acquisition: (i) maximising the impact of TMS on the cortex, and (ii) minimizing EEG confounding factors due to sensory co-stimulation.Regarding the impact of TMS on the cortex, it is very likely that the authors of [1] were not as effective as other investigators for the following reasons. First, they applied TMS with a maximum electric field (E-field) intensity between 70 and 90 V/m according to their estimation, assuming a priori that this would have warranted effective cortical activation based on a previous work [12]. However, in Ref. [1] the authors adopted a small coil (outer winding diameter: 45 mm) which, compared to the larger ones (outer winding