Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2026

Extracting Visual Evoked Potentials from EEG Data Recorded During fMRI-guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: May 12, 2014
Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on P300 of event-related potential
M Iwahashi1, Y Katayama, S Ueno
1Graduate School of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. iwahashi@tohwa-u.ac.jp
Abstract:
When the odd stimulation is presented, the positive component of electroencephalograph is induced at around 300 ms after the odd stimulation. This positive component is called P300. Many studies suggest that P300 may result from the summation of activity from multiple generators located in widespread cortical and subcortical areas. However, there is still no conclusive indication of the sources of P300. In this paper, we focus on the left supramaginal gyrus as one of the sources of P300. We investigated the temporal aspect of this area using TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation). We investigated the relationship between the latency of the P300 and an effect of TMS when the left supramarginal gyrus was stimulated by TMS. In our previous study, we reported a method of removing stimulus artifact during TMS with Sample-and-Hold circuit and electroencephalogram (EEG) activity evoked by TMS could be measured successfully. In addition to this method, independent component analysis (ICA) was also applied to recorded EEG data in order to remove the stimulus artifact by off-line analysis. By using these methods, short latency (< 15 ms) EEG responses to TMS could be obtained. We stimulated the left supramarginal gyrus using a figure-eight coil during auditory oddball task. The TMS at 150 ms and 200 ms after the oddball sounds were presented. When the TMS was applied at 200 ms after the oddball stimulation, the peak response of P300 was delayed around 50 ms. Difference of the peak latency between the control measurement and the case of TMS applying at 150 ms was not significant. However, the differences of the peak latency of the control measurement and the peak latency of the measurement in the cases of TMS applying at 200 ms and 250 ms was significant (p<0.05). We considered that this delay was due to inhibiting to recognize the target stimulation.
More Related Videos
09:52Measuring and Manipulating Functionally Specific Neural Pathways in the Human Motor System with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: February 23, 2020
08:50Brain State-dependent Brain Stimulation with Real-time Electroencephalography-Triggered Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: August 20, 2019