A. Brancaccio , D. Tabarelli , A. Zazio , G. Bertazzoli , J. Metsomaa , U. Ziemann , M. Bortoletto , P. Belardinelli
{"title":"制定 TMS-EEG 数据预处理标准。","authors":"A. Brancaccio , D. Tabarelli , A. Zazio , G. Bertazzoli , J. Metsomaa , U. Ziemann , M. Bortoletto , P. Belardinelli","doi":"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Combining Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) techniques with the recording of brain electrophysiological activity is an increasingly widespread approach in neuroscience. Particularly successful has been the simultaneous combination of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Electroencephalography (EEG). Unfortunately, the strong magnetic pulse required to effectively interact with brain activity inevitably induces artifacts in the concurrent EEG acquisition. Therefore, a careful but aggressive pre-processing is required to efficiently remove artifacts. Unfortunately, as already reported in the literature, different preprocessing approaches can introduce variability in the results. Here we aim at characterizing the three main TMS-EEG preprocessing pipelines currently available, namely ARTIST (Wu et al., 2018), TESA (Rogasch et al., 2017) and SOUND/SSP-SIR (Mutanen et al., 2018, 2016), providing an insight to researchers who need to choose between different approaches. Differently from previous works, we tested the pipelines using a synthetic TMS-EEG signal with a known <em>ground-truth</em> (the artifacts-free to-be-reconstructed signal). In this way, it was possible to assess the reliability of each pipeline precisely and quantitatively, providing a more robust reference for future research. In summary, we found that all pipelines performed well, but with differences in terms of the spatio-temporal precision of the ground-truth reconstruction. Crucially, the three pipelines impacted differently on the inter-trial variability, with ARTIST introducing inter-trial variability not already intrinsic to the ground-truth signal.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19299,"journal":{"name":"NeuroImage","volume":"301 ","pages":"Article 120874"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards the definition of a standard in TMS-EEG data preprocessing\",\"authors\":\"A. Brancaccio , D. Tabarelli , A. Zazio , G. Bertazzoli , J. Metsomaa , U. Ziemann , M. Bortoletto , P. Belardinelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Combining Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) techniques with the recording of brain electrophysiological activity is an increasingly widespread approach in neuroscience. Particularly successful has been the simultaneous combination of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Electroencephalography (EEG). Unfortunately, the strong magnetic pulse required to effectively interact with brain activity inevitably induces artifacts in the concurrent EEG acquisition. Therefore, a careful but aggressive pre-processing is required to efficiently remove artifacts. Unfortunately, as already reported in the literature, different preprocessing approaches can introduce variability in the results. Here we aim at characterizing the three main TMS-EEG preprocessing pipelines currently available, namely ARTIST (Wu et al., 2018), TESA (Rogasch et al., 2017) and SOUND/SSP-SIR (Mutanen et al., 2018, 2016), providing an insight to researchers who need to choose between different approaches. Differently from previous works, we tested the pipelines using a synthetic TMS-EEG signal with a known <em>ground-truth</em> (the artifacts-free to-be-reconstructed signal). In this way, it was possible to assess the reliability of each pipeline precisely and quantitatively, providing a more robust reference for future research. In summary, we found that all pipelines performed well, but with differences in terms of the spatio-temporal precision of the ground-truth reconstruction. Crucially, the three pipelines impacted differently on the inter-trial variability, with ARTIST introducing inter-trial variability not already intrinsic to the ground-truth signal.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NeuroImage\",\"volume\":\"301 \",\"pages\":\"Article 120874\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NeuroImage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924003719\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROIMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NeuroImage","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924003719","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Towards the definition of a standard in TMS-EEG data preprocessing
Combining Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) techniques with the recording of brain electrophysiological activity is an increasingly widespread approach in neuroscience. Particularly successful has been the simultaneous combination of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Electroencephalography (EEG). Unfortunately, the strong magnetic pulse required to effectively interact with brain activity inevitably induces artifacts in the concurrent EEG acquisition. Therefore, a careful but aggressive pre-processing is required to efficiently remove artifacts. Unfortunately, as already reported in the literature, different preprocessing approaches can introduce variability in the results. Here we aim at characterizing the three main TMS-EEG preprocessing pipelines currently available, namely ARTIST (Wu et al., 2018), TESA (Rogasch et al., 2017) and SOUND/SSP-SIR (Mutanen et al., 2018, 2016), providing an insight to researchers who need to choose between different approaches. Differently from previous works, we tested the pipelines using a synthetic TMS-EEG signal with a known ground-truth (the artifacts-free to-be-reconstructed signal). In this way, it was possible to assess the reliability of each pipeline precisely and quantitatively, providing a more robust reference for future research. In summary, we found that all pipelines performed well, but with differences in terms of the spatio-temporal precision of the ground-truth reconstruction. Crucially, the three pipelines impacted differently on the inter-trial variability, with ARTIST introducing inter-trial variability not already intrinsic to the ground-truth signal.
期刊介绍:
NeuroImage, a Journal of Brain Function provides a vehicle for communicating important advances in acquiring, analyzing, and modelling neuroimaging data and in applying these techniques to the study of structure-function and brain-behavior relationships. Though the emphasis is on the macroscopic level of human brain organization, meso-and microscopic neuroimaging across all species will be considered if informative for understanding the aforementioned relationships.