Suppression of visual perception by transcranial magnetic stimulation — experimental findings in healthy subjects and patients with optic neuritis

Occipital Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Has Opposing Effects on Visual and Auditory Stimulus Detection: Implications for Multisensory Interactions

“…Specifically, RTs to visual stimuli were impaired at within 60 -75 ms TMS-pulse delay (Fig. 2, black line), in keeping with previous studies demonstrating a visual "suppression" effect (Amassian et al, 1989;Beckers and Hömberg, 1991;Masur et al 1993;Corthout et al, 1999;Kastner et al, 1998, Kammer et al, 2005a, whereas those to auditory stimuli were facilitated at the same delays (Fig. 2, gray line).…”

Revisiting the Backward Masking Deficit in Schizophrenia: Individual Differences in Performance and Modeling With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

“…A U-shaped function, typical of previous studies using this TMS paradigm (Amassian et al 1989;Corthout et al 1999;Masur et al 1993;Miller et al 1996), was observed for both control and patient groups. The greatest effect on accuracy was between target-to-TMS intervals of 57 and 129 msec.…”

“…TMS has been found to affect visual processing in primary visual cortex (i.e. V1) in a characteristic, time-dependent manner (e.g., Amassian et al 1989;Corthout et al 1999;Masur et al 1993;Miller et al 1996). A single pulse from a magnetic coil placed over the occipital cortex can successfully mask a target stimulus when the magnetic pulse follows the visual presentation by 80 to 100 msec.…”

Masking visual stimuli by transcranial magnetic stimulation

“…The large variation in maximum SOA of about 50 ms in diVerent experiments is suYciently explained by diVerent luminance levels of the visual stimuli. Increasing the luminance results in a shorter maximum SOA (Masur, Papke, & Oberwittler, 1993;Miller, Fendrich, Eliassen, Demirel, & Gazzaniga, 1996). In our systematic approach (Kammer et al 2005a), the diVerent contrast thresholds obtained with diVerent TMS output intensities represented a luminance variation over a large range of about 2 magnitudes (Fig.…”

“…The decay function resembles reaction times or peaks of visual evoked potentials (VEPs) obtained at diVerent luminance levels . It seems to correlate with the most prominent component in visual evoked potentials (VEP), the positive peak around 100 ms called P100 or P1 (Masur et al 1993). Although our regression analysis ( Fig.…”