Stimulation parameters shape effective connectivity pathways: insights from microstate analysis on TMS-evoked potentials
Delia LucarelliiD, Giacomo GuidaliiD, Dominika ŠulcováiD, Agnese ZazioiD, Natale Salvatore BonfiglioiD, Antonietta StangoiD, Guido BarchiesiiD, Marta BortolettoiD
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs) represent an innovative measure for examining brain connectivity and developing biomarkers of psychiatric conditions. Minimising TEP variability across studies and participants, which may stem from methodological choices, is therefore vital. By combining classic peak analysis and microstate investigation, we tested how TMS pulse waveform and current direction may affect effective connectivity when targeting the primary motor cortex (M1). We aim to disentangle whether changing these parameters affects the degree of activation of the same neural circuitry or may lead to changes in the pathways through which the induced activation spreads. Thirty-two healthy participants underwent a TMS-EEG experiment in which the pulse waveform (monophasic, biphasic) and current direction (posterior-anterior, anterior-posterior, latero-medial) were manipulated. We assessed the latency and amplitude of M1-TEP components and employed microstate analyses to test differences in topographies. Results revealed that TMS parameters strongly influenced M1-TEP components amplitude but had a weaker role over their latencies. Importantly, microstate analysis showed that the current direction in monophasic stimulations changed the pattern of evoked microstates at the early TEP latencies, as well as their duration and the overall amount of activated brain resources associated. This study shows that the current direction of monophasic pulses may modulate cortical sources contributing to TEP signals, activating neural populations and cortico-cortical paths more selectively. Biphasic stimulation reduces the variability associated with current direction and may be better suited when TMS targeting is blind to anatomical information.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 18
- FWCI
- 6.47
- Field percentile
- top 3%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Direction-Specific Effects of Biphasic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Cortical and Cortico-spinal Excitability
Mirja Osnabruegge, Carolina Kanig, … Stefan Schoisswohl·bioRxiv·Jul 30, 2026
- TMS orientation and pulse waveform manipulation activates different neural populations: direct evidence from TMS-EEG
Alberto Pisoni, Alessandra Vergallito, … Leonor J. Romero Lauro·bioRxiv·Apr 26, 2018
- The Spectral Features Of EEG Responses To Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Of The Primary Motor Cortex Depend On The Amplitude Of The Motor Evoked Potentials
Matteo Fecchio, Andrea Pigorini, … Mario Rosanova·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Sep 14, 2017
- Pinging the Brain with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reveals Cortical Reactivity in Time and Space
Sangtae Ahn, Flavio Frӧhlich·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Jan 28, 2021
- Methodological choices matter: A systematic comparison of TMS-EEG studies targeting the primary motor cortex
Mikkel Malling Beck, Marieke Heyl, … Hartwig Roman Siebner·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Oct 15, 2024
- The dependency of TMS-evoked potentials on electric-field orientation in the cortex
Ida Granö, Tuomas P. Mutanen, … Pantelis Lioumis·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Apr 29, 2025