We found a significant main effect of stimulus type
(F(2, 12) = 5.27, P = 0.023) and timing of sham stimulation (F(3, 18) = 12.81, P < 0.001). Post hoc paired t-tests showed that participants responded more slowly when sham TMS was applied in comparison with no sham stimulation (no sham separately compared with the three sham conditions, all ts(6) >3.39, all Ps <0.05, one-tailed, FDR corrected, P < 0.05). RTs were not influenced by the actual timing of sham stimulation (no difference between sham stimulation in an early, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical intermediate, and late time window, all ts(6) <1.28, all Ps >0.25). Although our performance scores were not affected by nonspecific TMS effects (unrelated to the disruption of Vadimezan manufacturer neural activity in V1/V2, such as noisy clicks), it seems that RT differences were mainly driven by unspecific TMS effects. Figure versus background To isolate activity related to figure processing without influences from activity related to local dot displacement and the TMS-evoked potential, we subtracted Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical activity evoked by a homogenous stimulus from activity evoked
by a figure stimulus (stack and frame collapsed, see “EEG measurements and analyses”). We first examined the subtraction of these two ERPs without the effect of TMS (Fig. 5A). A difference between figure and homogenous stimuli appeared between 137 and 211 msec (FDR corrected, P < 0.05; see “Methods”). When we applied TMS over V1/V2 in an early time Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical window, the significant difference Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical between a figure and a homogenous stimulus is no longer there (Fig. 5B). However, because of the close temporal proximity of the interpolation
(see “EEG measurements and analyses”), one should be cautious with interpreting this null result. Not surprisingly (in a causal world), the difference signal was not affected when we applied TMS in the late time window (significant interval of the difference signal: 156–191 msec, FDR corrected, P < 0.05; see Fig. 5C). Unfortunately, due to interpolation of the EEG data, we were not able to test the difference Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical between figure and homogenous stimuli when TMS was applied in the intermediate time window (see “EEG measurements and analyses”). Remarkably, in the no TMS condition, we found a significant deflection between ERPs on figure trials and ERPs on homogenous trials (156–191 msec); and however, no behavioral changes were found when TMS was applied during that time window (the intermediate TMS time window, 156–179 msec). Although intuitively this may seem strange, Walsh and Cowey (2000) reported that the peak of the EEG signal does not necessarily have to correspond with the moment when TMS has its behavioral effect. They note that TMS can have a behavioral effect at different moments of the progression of the EEG signal. This difference in timing could be produced by the summative nature of different components in the build-up of the EEG signal, while TMS acts more directly on neural signaling.
Related posts:
- Tumor bearing limbs of wild type mice showed a significant decrea
- BMS-354825 the main ingredient of grape seed extracts which has strong natural antioxidant effect
- Following a stimulus for neovascularization endothelial cells adj
- A non significant
- Interaction was significant (p=0,00005) The arterio�Cvenous