On the Cerebral Origin of EEG Responses to TMS: Insights From Severe Cortical Lesions

BACKGROUND Transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electroencephalography (TMS/EEG) represents a valuable tool to probe cortical excitability and connectivity. Although several procedures have been devised to abolish TMS-related artifacts, direct evidence that it is possible to record TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) that purely reflect cortical responses to TMS are still lacking. OBJECTIVE To demonstrate that when TMS is delivered on a human head with intact nerves, scalp and ocular muscles, TEPs are present only if a functional portion of cortex is targeted and is absent otherwise. METHODS We performed extensive navigated TMS/EEG mappings in three vegetative state patients and in eight healthy controls. Patients were selected based on the extension of their cortical lesions as revealed by structural/functional imaging: the cerebral cortex was globally damaged in Patient 1 due to cerebral anoxia, Patient 2 showed a traumatic damage affecting one cerebral hemisphere, while Patient 3 was characterized by one left sided and one right-sided focal ischemic lesion. RESULTS In Patient 1, TMS performed at any targeted cortical site did not elicit statistically significant TEPs. In Patient 2, TEPs were absent when the damaged hemisphere was targeted, while were present over the healthy side. In Patient 3, significant TEPs were absent when cortical lesions were targeted and present otherwise. Significant TEPs were always present in healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that, provided that appropriate experimental procedures are employed, TEPs are genuine cortical responses detectable only when preserved cortical tissue is stimulated. Hence, a dependable assessment of cortical excitability and connectivity in brain-injured patients requires the use of neuronavigated TMS.

[1]  R. J. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Instrumentation for the measurement of electric brain responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation , 1999, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[2]  Risto J. Ilmoniemi,et al.  The Effect of Stimulus Parameters on TMS–EEG Muscle Artifacts , 2013, Brain Stimulation.

[3]  J. Giacino,et al.  The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[5]  D. Lehmann,et al.  Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  E Corthout,et al.  Suppression of vision by transcranial magnetic stimulation: a third mechanism , 2000, Neuroreport.

[7]  Marcello Massimini,et al.  Recovery of cortical effective connectivity and recovery of consciousness in vegetative patients , 2012, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[8]  Jing Lv,et al.  Objective detection of evoked potentials using a bootstrap technique. , 2007, Medical engineering & physics.

[9]  Walter G Sannita,et al.  Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome , 2010, BMC medicine.

[10]  M. Massimini,et al.  Natural Frequencies of Human Corticothalamic Circuits , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Athena Demertzi,et al.  Metabolic activity in external and internal awareness networks in severely brain-damaged patients. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  Steve Majerus,et al.  A French validation study of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) , 2008, Brain injury.

[13]  Michel J A M van Putten,et al.  Masking the Auditory Evoked Potential in TMS-EEG: A Comparison of Various Methods. , 2015, Brain topography.

[14]  Steve Majerus,et al.  Functional neuroanatomy underlying the clinical subcategorization of minimally conscious state patients , 2012, Journal of Neurology.

[15]  Juha Heiskala,et al.  Excitation threshold of the motor cortex estimated with transcranial magnetic stimulation electroencephalography , 2007, Neuroreport.

[16]  G. Tononi,et al.  Breakdown in cortical effective connectivity during midazolam-induced loss of consciousness , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Marcello Massimini,et al.  General indices to characterize the electrical response of the cerebral cortex to TMS , 2010, NeuroImage.

[18]  C. Miniussi,et al.  Combining TMS and EEG Offers New Prospects in Cognitive Neuroscience , 2009, Brain Topography.

[19]  M. Lotze,et al.  MRI brain lesion patterns in patients in anoxia-induced vegetative state , 2007, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[20]  V. Nikouline,et al.  The role of the coil click in TMS assessed with simultaneous EEG , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[21]  H. Preissl,et al.  Bootstrap significance of low SNR evoked response , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[22]  Risto J. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Methodology for Combined TMS and EEG , 2009, Brain Topography.

[23]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders , 2004, The Lancet Neurology.

[24]  G. Tononi,et al.  Breakdown of Cortical Effective Connectivity During Sleep , 2005, Science.

[25]  Nigel C Rogasch,et al.  Assessing cortical network properties using TMS–EEG , 2013, Human brain mapping.

[26]  Steve Majerus,et al.  Visual fixation in the vegetative state: an observational case series PET study , 2010, BMC neurology.

[27]  U. Ziemann Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at the Interface with Other Techniques , 2011, The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry.

[28]  Carlo Miniussi,et al.  TMS-EEG co-registration: On TMS-induced artifact , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[29]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Neuronal responses to magnetic stimulation reveal cortical reactivity and connectivity , 1997, Neuroreport.