Magnetic fields produced by eye blinking

Antervo, A.; Hari, Riitta; Katila, T.; Ryhänen, Tapani; Seppänen, Marko

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(85)91091-0

Cited by 34 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this procedure could not remove time-locked blinks in response to TMS. Blink potentials are mainly caused by currents flowing from the positively charged cornea to the anterior forehead when the eyelids slide down (Matsuo et al, 1975;Antervo et al, 1985). Thus, blinks produce a slightly lower negativity below and a stronger positivity above the eye (Picton et al, 2000;Bender et al, 2008).…”

Section: Source Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical inhibition in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: new insights from the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation

Bruckmann

Hauk

Roessner

et al. 2012

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most frequent neuropsychiatric disorders in childhood. Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies based on muscle responses (motor-evoked potentials) suggested that reduced motor inhibition contributes to hyperactivity, a core symptom of the disease. Here we employed the N100 component of the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation as a novel marker for a direct assessment of cortical inhibitory processes, which has not been examined in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder so far. We further investigated to what extent affected children were able to regulate motor cortical inhibition, and whether effects of age on the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation were compatible with either a delay in brain maturation or a qualitatively different development. N100 amplitude evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation and its age-dependent development were assessed in 20 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 19 healthy control children (8-14 years) by 64-channel electroencephalography. Amplitude and latency of the N100 component were compared at rest, during response preparation in a forewarned motor reaction time task and during movement execution. The amplitude of the N100 component at rest was significantly lower and its latency tended to be shorter in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Only in controls, N100 amplitude to transcranial magnetic stimulation was reduced by response preparation. During movement execution, N100 amplitude decreased while motor evoked potential amplitudes showed facilitation, indicating that the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation provides further information on cortical excitability independent of motor evoked potential amplitudes and spinal influences. Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder showed a smaller N100 amplitude reduction during movement execution compared with control children. The N100 amplitude evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation decreased with increasing age in both groups. The N100 reduction in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at all ages suggests a qualitative difference rather than delayed development of cortical inhibition in this disease. Findings further suggest that top-down control of motor cortical inhibition is reduced in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We conclude that evoked potentials in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation are a promising new marker of cortical inhibition in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder during childhood.

show abstract

Section: Source Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical inhibition in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: new insights from the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation

Bruckmann

Hauk

Roessner

et al. 2012

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The identification of the MOG (magneto-occulogram, [7]) component in the ICA result was simple as it represented more signal power than any other component and its time series was the only one following closely the state of the eyes. A polarity change is visible in the MOG map too, but the extrema are outside the sensor area implying a source further away.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-neuronal DC offsets in occipital α oscillations

Sander

Thiel

Schnabel

et al. 2007

International Congress Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Significant contamination is also caused by eye blinks and movements 1 . Each eye can be modeled as a small electrical dipole 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evaluation of Artifact Removal in Real Magnetoencephalogram Signals with Blind Source Separation

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Magnetoencephalogram (MEG) is contaminated with undesired signals, which are called artifacts. Some of the most important ones are the cardiac and the ocular artifacts (CA and OA, respectively), and the power line noise (PLN).Blind Source Separation (BSS) has been used to reduce the influence of the artifacts in the data. There is a plethora of BSS-based artifact removal approaches, but few comparative analyses. In this study, MEG background activity from 26 subjects was processed with five widespread BSS (AMUSE, SOBI, JADE, extended Infomax, and FastICA) and one Constrained BSS (cBSS) techniques. Then, the ability of several combinations of BSS algorithm, epoch length, and artifact detection metric to automatically reduce the CA, OA, and PLN were quantified with objective criteria. The results pinpointed to cBSS as a very suitable approach to remove the

show abstract

Magnetic fields produced by eye blinking

Cited by 34 publications

References 8 publications

Cortical inhibition in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: new insights from the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation

Cortical inhibition in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: new insights from the electroencephalographic response to transcranial magnetic stimulation

Non-neuronal DC offsets in occipital α oscillations

Quantitative Evaluation of Artifact Removal in Real Magnetoencephalogram Signals with Blind Source Separation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About