Cargando…

Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used to make inferences about relationships between brain areas and their functions because, in contrast to neuroimaging tools, it modulates neuronal activity. The central aim of this article is to critically evaluate to what extent it is possible to draw c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hobot, Justyna, Klincewicz, Michał, Sandberg, Kristian, Wierzchoń, Michał
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7873895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33584220
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.586448
_version_ 1783649471134957568
author Hobot, Justyna
Klincewicz, Michał
Sandberg, Kristian
Wierzchoń, Michał
author_facet Hobot, Justyna
Klincewicz, Michał
Sandberg, Kristian
Wierzchoń, Michał
author_sort Hobot, Justyna
collection PubMed
description Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used to make inferences about relationships between brain areas and their functions because, in contrast to neuroimaging tools, it modulates neuronal activity. The central aim of this article is to critically evaluate to what extent it is possible to draw causal inferences from repetitive TMS (rTMS) data. To that end, we describe the logical limitations of inferences based on rTMS experiments. The presented analysis suggests that rTMS alone does not provide the sort of premises that are sufficient to warrant strong inferences about the direct causal properties of targeted brain structures. Overcoming these limitations demands a close look at the designs of rTMS studies, especially the methodological and theoretical conditions which are necessary for the functional decomposition of the relations between brain areas and cognitive functions. The main points of this article are that TMS-based inferences are limited in that stimulation-related causal effects are not equivalent to structure-related causal effects due to TMS side effects, the electric field distribution, and the sensitivity of neuroimaging and behavioral methods in detecting structure-related effects and disentangling them from confounds. Moreover, the postulated causal effects can be based on indirect (network) effects. A few suggestions on how to manage some of these limitations are presented. We discuss the benefits of combining rTMS with neuroimaging in experimental reasoning and we address the restrictions and requirements of rTMS control conditions. The use of neuroimaging and control conditions allows stronger inferences to be gained, but the strength of the inferences that can be drawn depends on the individual experiment’s designs. Moreover, in some cases, TMS might not be an appropriate method of answering causality-related questions or the hypotheses have to account for the limitations of this technique. We hope this summary and formalization of the reasoning behind rTMS research can be of use not only for scientists and clinicians who intend to interpret rTMS results causally but also for philosophers interested in causal inferences based on brain stimulation research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7873895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78738952021-02-11 Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives Hobot, Justyna Klincewicz, Michał Sandberg, Kristian Wierzchoń, Michał Front Hum Neurosci Human Neuroscience Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used to make inferences about relationships between brain areas and their functions because, in contrast to neuroimaging tools, it modulates neuronal activity. The central aim of this article is to critically evaluate to what extent it is possible to draw causal inferences from repetitive TMS (rTMS) data. To that end, we describe the logical limitations of inferences based on rTMS experiments. The presented analysis suggests that rTMS alone does not provide the sort of premises that are sufficient to warrant strong inferences about the direct causal properties of targeted brain structures. Overcoming these limitations demands a close look at the designs of rTMS studies, especially the methodological and theoretical conditions which are necessary for the functional decomposition of the relations between brain areas and cognitive functions. The main points of this article are that TMS-based inferences are limited in that stimulation-related causal effects are not equivalent to structure-related causal effects due to TMS side effects, the electric field distribution, and the sensitivity of neuroimaging and behavioral methods in detecting structure-related effects and disentangling them from confounds. Moreover, the postulated causal effects can be based on indirect (network) effects. A few suggestions on how to manage some of these limitations are presented. We discuss the benefits of combining rTMS with neuroimaging in experimental reasoning and we address the restrictions and requirements of rTMS control conditions. The use of neuroimaging and control conditions allows stronger inferences to be gained, but the strength of the inferences that can be drawn depends on the individual experiment’s designs. Moreover, in some cases, TMS might not be an appropriate method of answering causality-related questions or the hypotheses have to account for the limitations of this technique. We hope this summary and formalization of the reasoning behind rTMS research can be of use not only for scientists and clinicians who intend to interpret rTMS results causally but also for philosophers interested in causal inferences based on brain stimulation research. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7873895/ /pubmed/33584220 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.586448 Text en Copyright © 2021 Hobot, Klincewicz, Sandberg and Wierzchoń. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Human Neuroscience
Hobot, Justyna
Klincewicz, Michał
Sandberg, Kristian
Wierzchoń, Michał
Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives
title Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives
title_full Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives
title_fullStr Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives
title_full_unstemmed Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives
title_short Causal Inferences in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research: Challenges and Perspectives
title_sort causal inferences in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation research: challenges and perspectives
topic Human Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7873895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33584220
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.586448
work_keys_str_mv AT hobotjustyna causalinferencesinrepetitivetranscranialmagneticstimulationresearchchallengesandperspectives
AT klincewiczmichał causalinferencesinrepetitivetranscranialmagneticstimulationresearchchallengesandperspectives
AT sandbergkristian causalinferencesinrepetitivetranscranialmagneticstimulationresearchchallengesandperspectives
AT wierzchonmichał causalinferencesinrepetitivetranscranialmagneticstimulationresearchchallengesandperspectives