Abstract:The combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography (EEG) elegantly probes excitability and connectivity of the human brain. However, TMS‐EEG signals inevitably also contain sensory evoked responses caused by TMS‐associated auditory and somatosensory inputs, constituting a substantial confounding factor. Here we applied our recently established optimized SHAM protocol (Gordon et al., Neuroimage 2021:118708) to disentangle TMS‐EEG responses caused by TMS vs. sensory input. One unresolved question is whether these responses superimpose without relevant interaction, a requirement for their disaggregation by the optimized SHAM approach. We applied in 20 healthy subjects a pharmacological intervention using a single oral dose of 20 mg of diazepam, a positive modulator of GABAA receptors. Diazepam decreased the amplitudes of the P60 and P150 components specifically in the ACTIVE TMS and/or the ACTIVE TMS minus SHAM conditions but not in the SHAM condition, pointing to a response caused by TMS. In contrast, diazepam suppressed the amplitude of the N100 component indiscriminately in the ACTIVE TMS and SHAM conditions but not in the ACTIVE TMS minus SHAM condition, pointing to a response caused by sensory input. Moreover, diazepam suppressed the beta‐band response observed in the motor cortex specifically after ACTIVE TMS and ACTIVE TMS minus SHAM. These findings demonstrate lack of interaction of TMS‐EEG responses caused by TMS vs. sensory input and validate optimized SHAM‐controlled TMS‐EEG as an appropriate approach to untangle these TMS‐EEG responses. This gain of knowledge will enable the proficient use of TMS‐EEG to probe physiology of human cortex. Key points Optimized SHAM disentangles TMS‐EEG responses caused by TMS vs. sensory input Diazepam modulates differentially TMS‐EEG responses caused by TMS vs. sensory input Diazepam modulation of P60 and P150 indicate TMS‐EEG responses caused by TMS Diazepam modulation of N100 indicate a TMS‐EEG response caused by sensory input figure legend a. Representation of the TMS target on the scalp (marked as red "x") indicating the left primary motor cortex (around the location of the C3 electrode). b. Representation of the SHAM TMS condition, which involved the delivery of auditory (masking nose and sham coil) and somatosensory stimuli (scalp electrical stimulation) of equivalent intensity compared to the ACTIVE TMS. To the right, topographical plots display the results from the statistical comparison between responses post vs. pre diazepam intake, using cluster‐based dependent samples t‐tests (electrodes that composed the significant clusters in cyan). Below, time course plot of the EEG responses to the stimuli before (green) and after (purple) the intake of diazepam. Plotted signal corresponds to the average across all significant electrodes, displayed in the topographical plots above. Shaded gray areas indicate the time windows of significant difference between the EEG responses. c. Representation of the ACTIVE TMS condition, which, in addition to auditory (masking noise and real coil) and somatosensory stimuli (scalp electrical stimulation and real coil), involved the direct activation of the underlying cortex. Time course plot of EEG responses and topographical plots as in "b". d. By subtracting the individual EEG responses to sensory stimuli (SHAM) from the response to TMS (ACTIVE) we obtain the EEG response attributed solely to the direct cortical activation by TMS. Time course plot of EEG responses and topographical plots as in "b". This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Characterizing and minimizing the contribution of sensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials

Evoked EEG Responses to TMS Targeting Regions Outside the Primary Motor Cortex and Their Test-Retest Reliability

Methodological Choices Matter: A Systematic Comparison of TMS‐EEG Studies Targeting the Primary Motor Cortex

Methodological choices matter: A systematic comparison of TMS-EEG studies targeting the primary motor cortex

TMS combined with EEG: Recommendations and open issues for data collection and analysis

Identification and verification of a 'true' TMS evoked potential in TMS-EEG

Transcranial magnetic stimulation induced early silent period and rebound activity re-examined

Computational and experimental analysis of TMS-induced electric field vectors critical to neuronal activation

Sensory Entrained TMS (seTMS) enhances motor cortex excitability

TMS-EEG signatures of the effects of transcranial static magnetic field stimulation (tSMS) on cortical excitability

Circuits and Mechanisms for TMS-Induced Corticospinal Waves: Connecting Sensitivity Analysis to the Network Graph

Untangling TMS‐EEG responses caused by TMS versus sensory input using optimized sham control and GABAergic challenge

Responses of model cortical neurons to temporal interference stimulation and related transcranial alternating current stimulation modalities

Modeling the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on spatial attention

EEG Monitoring Is Feasible and Reliable during Simultaneous Transcutaneous Electrical Spinal Cord Stimulation

Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: What is stimulated? – A consensus and critical position paper

Accessibility of cortical regions to focal TES: Dependence on spatial position, safety, and practical constraints

Auditory Fine-Tuned Suppressor of TMS-Clicks (TMS-Click AFTS): A Novel, Perceptually Driven/Tuned Approach for the Reduction in AEP Artifacts in TMS-EEG Studies

Simulation of transcranial magnetic stimulation in head model with morphologically-realistic cortical neurons

State dependent motor cortex stimulation reveals distinct mechanisms for corticospinal excitability and cortical responses

Probing regional cortical excitability via input–output properties using transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography coupling