Examining the role of feedback in TMS-induced visual suppression: A cautionary tale

Evan G. Center, Ramisha Knight, Monica Fabiani, Gabriele Gratton, Diane M Beck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Visual suppression by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) has been attributed to interruptions of either feedforward or feedback activity in the visual stream. The relative timing of the C1 event related potential (ERP) and of the TMS suppression, taken from separate studies, supports an interruption of feedback. Here we probe the validity of such cross-study comparisons, both by conducting a literature survey and by measuring each time window within participants for the same stimuli. Cortical transmission time was estimated using the C1. We then suppressed the same stimuli that elicited the C1 using sTMS of variable post-stimulus lags. Results do not conclusively discriminate between interruption of feedback or feedforward mechanisms as the source of the visual suppression. We suggest that more evidence is needed to distinguish between feedback and feedforward interference in TMS suppression effects and we advise caution in making inferences derived from separate literatures, using different stimuli.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number102805
JournalConsciousness and Cognition
Volume75
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2019

Fingerprint

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Evoked Potentials
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Awareness
  • C1 component
  • Feedback
  • Suppression
  • TMS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

Examining the role of feedback in TMS-induced visual suppression : A cautionary tale. / Center, Evan G.; Knight, Ramisha; Fabiani, Monica; Gratton, Gabriele; Beck, Diane M.

In: Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 75, 102805, 10.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{76192f40341d4fa28c47b74a4cf87e7e,
title = "Examining the role of feedback in TMS-induced visual suppression: A cautionary tale",
abstract = "Visual suppression by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) has been attributed to interruptions of either feedforward or feedback activity in the visual stream. The relative timing of the C1 event related potential (ERP) and of the TMS suppression, taken from separate studies, supports an interruption of feedback. Here we probe the validity of such cross-study comparisons, both by conducting a literature survey and by measuring each time window within participants for the same stimuli. Cortical transmission time was estimated using the C1. We then suppressed the same stimuli that elicited the C1 using sTMS of variable post-stimulus lags. Results do not conclusively discriminate between interruption of feedback or feedforward mechanisms as the source of the visual suppression. We suggest that more evidence is needed to distinguish between feedback and feedforward interference in TMS suppression effects and we advise caution in making inferences derived from separate literatures, using different stimuli.",
keywords = "Awareness, C1 component, Feedback, Suppression, TMS",
author = "Center, {Evan G.} and Ramisha Knight and Monica Fabiani and Gabriele Gratton and Beck, {Diane M}",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.concog.2019.102805",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
journal = "Consciousness and Cognition",
issn = "1053-8100",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examining the role of feedback in TMS-induced visual suppression

T2 - A cautionary tale

AU - Center, Evan G.

AU - Knight, Ramisha

AU - Fabiani, Monica

AU - Gratton, Gabriele

AU - Beck, Diane M

PY - 2019/10

Y1 - 2019/10

N2 - Visual suppression by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) has been attributed to interruptions of either feedforward or feedback activity in the visual stream. The relative timing of the C1 event related potential (ERP) and of the TMS suppression, taken from separate studies, supports an interruption of feedback. Here we probe the validity of such cross-study comparisons, both by conducting a literature survey and by measuring each time window within participants for the same stimuli. Cortical transmission time was estimated using the C1. We then suppressed the same stimuli that elicited the C1 using sTMS of variable post-stimulus lags. Results do not conclusively discriminate between interruption of feedback or feedforward mechanisms as the source of the visual suppression. We suggest that more evidence is needed to distinguish between feedback and feedforward interference in TMS suppression effects and we advise caution in making inferences derived from separate literatures, using different stimuli.

AB - Visual suppression by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) has been attributed to interruptions of either feedforward or feedback activity in the visual stream. The relative timing of the C1 event related potential (ERP) and of the TMS suppression, taken from separate studies, supports an interruption of feedback. Here we probe the validity of such cross-study comparisons, both by conducting a literature survey and by measuring each time window within participants for the same stimuli. Cortical transmission time was estimated using the C1. We then suppressed the same stimuli that elicited the C1 using sTMS of variable post-stimulus lags. Results do not conclusively discriminate between interruption of feedback or feedforward mechanisms as the source of the visual suppression. We suggest that more evidence is needed to distinguish between feedback and feedforward interference in TMS suppression effects and we advise caution in making inferences derived from separate literatures, using different stimuli.

KW - Awareness

KW - C1 component

KW - Feedback

KW - Suppression

KW - TMS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071414193&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071414193&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.concog.2019.102805

DO - 10.1016/j.concog.2019.102805

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85071414193

VL - 75

JO - Consciousness and Cognition

JF - Consciousness and Cognition

SN - 1053-8100

M1 - 102805

ER -