Reliability and Validity of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-Electroencephalography Biomarkers

Closed-Loop Brain Stimulation

In the same way that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, what a stimulus does to the brain is determined not simply by the nature of the stimulus but by the nature of the brain that is receiving the stimulus at that instant in time. Over the past decades, therapeutic brain stimulation has typically applied open-loop fixed protocols and has largely ignored this principle. Only recent neurotechnological advancements have enabled us to predict the nature of the brain (i.e., the electrophysiological brain state in the next instance in time) with sufficient temporal precision in the range of milliseconds using feedforward algorithms applied to electroencephalography time-series data. This allows stimulation exclusively whenever the targeted brain area is in a prespecified excitability or connectivity state. Preclinical studies have shown that repetitive stimulation during a particular brain state (e.g., high-excitability state), but not during other states, results in lasting modification (e.g., long-term potentiation) of the stimulated circuits. Here, we survey the evidence that this is also possible at the systems level of the human cortex using electroencephalography-informed transcranial magnetic stimulation. We critically discuss opportunities and difficulties in developing brain state-dependent stimulation for more effective long-term modification of pathological brain networks (e.g., in major depressive disorder) than is achievable with conventional fixed protocols. The same real-time electroencephalography-informed transcranial magnetic stimulation technology will allow closing of the loop by recording the effects of stimulation. This information may enable stimulation protocol adaptation that maximizes treatment response. This way, brain states control brain stimulation, thereby introducing a paradigm shift from open-loop to closed-loop stimulation.

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

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked electroencephalography (EEG) potentials (TEPs) provide unique insights into cortical excitability and connectivity. However, confounding EEG signals from auditory and somatosensory co-stimulation complicate TEP interpretation. Our optimized sham procedure established with TMS of primary motor cortex (Gordon in JAMA 245:118708, 2021) differentiates direct cortical EEG responses to TMS from those caused by peripheral sensory inputs. Using this approach, this study aimed to investigate TEPs and their test-retest reliability when targeting regions outside the primary motor cortex, specifically the left angular gyrus, supplementary motor area, and medial prefrontal cortex. We conducted three identical TMS-EEG sessions one week apart involving 24 healthy participants. In each session, we targeted the three areas separately using a figure-of-eight TMS coil for active TMS, while a second coil away from the head produced auditory input for sham TMS. Masking noise and electric scalp stimulation were applied in both conditions to achieve matched EEG responses to peripheral sensory inputs. High test-retest reliability was observed in both conditions. However, reliability declined for the 'cleaned' TEPs, resulting from the subtraction of evoked EEG response to the sham TMS from those to the active, particularly for latencies > 100 ms following the TMS pulse. Significant EEG differences were found between active and sham TMS at latencies < 90 ms for all targeted areas, exhibiting distinct spatiotemporal characteristics specific to each target. In conclusion, our optimized sham procedure effectively reveals EEG responses to direct cortical activation by TMS in brain areas outside primary motor cortex. Moreover, we demonstrate the impact of peripheral sensory inputs on test-retest reliability of TMS-EEG responses.

Neural effects of TMS trains on the human prefrontal cortex

How does a train of TMS pulses modify neural activity in humans? Despite adoption of repetitive TMS (rTMS) for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, we still do not understand how rTMS changes the human brain. This limited understanding stems in part from a lack of methods for noninvasively measuring the neural effects of a single TMS train-a fundamental building block of treatment-as well as the cumulative effects of consecutive TMS trains. Gaining this understanding would provide foundational knowledge to guide the next generation of treatments. Here, to overcome this limitation, we developed methods to noninvasively measure causal and acute changes in cortical excitability and evaluated this neural response to single and sequential TMS trains. In 16 healthy adults, standard 10 Hz trains were applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in a randomized, sham-controlled, event-related design and changes were assessed based on the TMS-evoked potential (TEP), a measure of cortical excitability. We hypothesized that single TMS trains would induce changes in the local TEP amplitude and that those changes would accumulate across sequential trains, but primary analyses did not indicate evidence in support of either of these hypotheses. Exploratory analyses demonstrated non-local neural changes in sensor and source space and local neural changes in phase and source space. Together these results suggest that single and sequential TMS trains may not be sufficient to modulate local cortical excitability indexed by typical TEP amplitude metrics but may cause neural changes that can be detected outside the stimulation area or using phase or source space metrics. This work should be contextualized as methods development for the monitoring of transient noninvasive neural changes during rTMS and contributes to a growing understanding of the neural effects of rTMS.

Neural effects of TMS trains on the human prefrontal cortex

How does a train of TMS pulses modify neural activity in humans? Despite adoption of repetitive TMS (rTMS) for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, we still do not understand how rTMS changes the human brain. This limited understanding stems in part from a lack of methods for noninvasively measuring the neural effects of a single TMS train - a fundamental building block of treatment - as well as the cumulative effects of consecutive TMS trains. Gaining this understanding would provide foundational knowledge to guide the next generation of treatments. Here, to overcome this limitation, we developed methods to noninvasively measure causal and acute changes in cortical excitability and evaluated this neural response to single and sequential TMS trains. In 16 healthy adults, standard 10 Hz trains were applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) in a randomized, sham-controlled, event-related design and changes were assessed based on the TMS-evoked potential (TEP), a measure of cortical excitability. We hypothesized that single TMS trains would induce changes in the local TEP amplitude and that those changes would accumulate across sequential trains, but primary analyses did not indicate evidence in support of either of these hypotheses. Exploratory analyses demonstrated non-local neural changes in sensor and source space and local neural changes in phase and source space. Together these results suggest that single and sequential TMS trains may not be sufficient to modulate local cortical excitability indexed by typical TEP amplitude metrics but may cause neural changes that can be detected outside the stimulation area or using phase or source space metrics. This work should be contextualized as methods development for the monitoring of transient noninvasive neural changes during rTMS and contributes to a growing understanding of the neural effects of rTMS.

TMS provokes target-dependent intracranial rhythms across human cortical and subcortical sites

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is increasingly deployed in the treatment of neuropsychiatric illness, under the presumption that stimulation of specific cortical targets can alter ongoing neural activity and cause circuit-level changes in brain function. While the electrophysiological effects of TMS have been extensively studied with scalp electroencephalography (EEG), this approach is most useful for evaluating low-frequency neural activity at the cortical surface. As such, little is known about how TMS perturbs rhythmic activity among deeper structures - such as the hippocampus and amygdala - and whether stimulation can alter higher-frequency oscillations. Recent work has established that TMS can be safely used in patients with intracranial electrodes (iEEG), allowing for direct neural recordings at sufficient spatiotemporal resolution to examine localized oscillatory responses across the frequency spectrum. To that end, we recruited 17 neurosurgical patients with indwelling electrodes and recorded neural activity while patients underwent repeated trials of single-pulse TMS at several cortical sites. Stimulation to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) drove widespread low-frequency increases (3-8Hz) in frontolimbic cortices, as well as high-frequency decreases (30-110Hz) in frontotemporal areas, including the hippocampus. Stimulation to parietal cortex specifically provoked low-frequency responses in the medial temporal lobe. While most low-frequency activity was consistent with brief evoked responses, anterior frontal regions exhibited induced theta oscillations following DLPFC stimulation. Taken together, we established that non-invasive stimulation can (1) provoke a mixture of low-frequency evoked power and induced theta oscillations and (2) suppress high-frequency activity in deeper brain structures not directly accessed by stimulation itself.

Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) current direction and pulse waveform on cortico-cortical connectivity: A registered report TMS-EEG study

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs) are a promising proxy for measuring effective connectivity, that is, the directed transmission of physiological signals along cortico-cortical tracts, and for developing connectivity-based biomarkers. A crucial point is how stimulation parameters may affect TEPs, as they may contribute to the general variability of findings across studies. Here, we manipulated two TMS parameters (i.e. current direction and pulse waveform) while measuring (a) an early TEP component reflecting contralateral inhibition of motor areas, namely, M1-P15, as an operative model of interhemispheric cortico-cortical connectivity, and (b) motor-evoked potentials (MEP) for the corticospinal pathway. Our results showed that these two TMS parameters are crucial to evoke the M1-P15, influencing its amplitude, latency, and replicability. Specifically, (a) M1-P15 amplitude was strongly affected by current direction in monophasic stimulation; (b) M1-P15 latency was significantly modulated by current direction for monophasic and biphasic pulses. The replicability of M1-P15 was substantial for the same stimulation condition. At the same time, it was poor when stimulation parameters were changed, suggesting that these factors must be controlled to obtain stable single-subject measures. Finally, MEP latency was modulated by current direction, whereas non-statistically significant changes were evident for amplitude. Overall, our study highlights the importance of TMS parameters for early TEP responses recording and suggests controlling their impact in developing connectivity biomarkers from TEPs. Moreover, these results point out that the excitability of the corticospinal tract, which is commonly used as a reference to set TMS intensity, may not correspond to the excitability of cortico-cortical pathways.

Reliability of the TMS-evoked potential in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Background

We currently lack a robust and reliable method to probe cortical excitability noninvasively from the human dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), a region heavily implicated in psychiatric disorders. We recently found that the strength of early and local dlPFC single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (EL-TEPs) varied widely depending on the anatomical subregion probed, with more medial regions eliciting stronger responses than anterolateral sites. Despite these differences in amplitude of response, the reliability at each target is not known.

Objective

To evaluate the reliability of EL-TEPs across the dlPFC.

Methods

In 15 healthy subjects, we quantified within-session reliability of dlPFC EL-TEPs after single pulse TMS to six dlPFC subregions. We evaluated the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) across targets and analytical parameters including time window, quantification method, region of interest, sensor-vs. source-space, and number of trials.

Results

At least one target in the anterior and posterior dlPFC produced reliable EL-TEPs (CCC>0.7). The medial target was most reliable (CCC = 0.78) and the most anterior target was least reliable (CCC = 0.24). ROI size and type (sensor vs. source space) did not affect reliability. Longer (20-60 ms, CCC = 0.62) and later (30-60 ms, CCC = 0.61) time windows resulted in higher reliability compared to earlier and shorter (20-40 ms, CCC 0.43; 20-50 ms, CCC = 0.55) time windows. Peak-to-peak quantification resulted in higher reliability than the mean of the absolute amplitude. Reliable EL-TEPs (CCC up to 0.86) were observed using only 25 TMS trials for a medial dlPFC target.

Conclusions

Medial TMS location, wider time window (20-60ms), and peak-to-peak quantification improved reliability. Highly reliable EL-TEPs can be extracted from dlPFC after only a small number of trials.

Highlights

Medial dlPFC target improved EL-TEP reliability compared to anterior targets.After optimizing analytical parameters, at least one anterior and one posterior target was reliable (CCC>0.7).Longer (20-60 ms) and later (30-60 ms) time windows were more reliable than earlier and shorter (20-40 ms or 20-50 ms) latencies.Peak-to-peak quantification resulted in higher reliability compared to the mean of the absolute amplitude.As low as 25 trials can yield reliable EL-TEPs from the dlPFC.

Toward personalized circuit-based closed-loop brain-interventions in psychiatry: using symptom provocation to extract EEG-markers of brain circuit activity

Symptom provocation is a well-established component of psychiatric research and therapy. It is hypothesized that specific activation of those brain circuits involved in the symptomatic expression of a brain pathology makes the relevant neural substrate accessible as a target for therapeutic interventions. For example, in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), symptom provocation is an important part of psychotherapy and is also performed prior to therapeutic brain stimulation with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Here, we discuss the potential of symptom provocation to isolate neurophysiological biomarkers reflecting the fluctuating activity of relevant brain networks with the goal of subsequently using these markers as targets to guide therapy. We put forward a general experimental framework based on the rapid switching between psychiatric symptom states. This enable neurophysiological measures to be derived from EEG and/or TMS-evoked EEG measures of brain activity during both states. By subtracting the data recorded during the baseline state from that recorded during the provoked state, the resulting contrast would ideally isolate the specific neural circuits differentially activated during the expression of symptoms. A similar approach enables the design of effective classifiers of brain activity from EEG data in Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI). To obtain reliable contrast data, psychiatric state switching needs to be achieved multiple times during a continuous recording so that slow changes of brain activity affect both conditions equally. This is achieved easily for conditions that can be controlled intentionally, such as motor imagery, attention, or memory retention. With regard to psychiatric symptoms, an increase can often be provoked effectively relatively easily, however, it can be difficult to reliably and rapidly return to a baseline state. Here, we review different approaches to return from a provoked state to a baseline state and how these may be applied to different symptoms occurring in different psychiatric disorders.