RT @JHPsychedelics: ‼️NEW STUDY FOR HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS‼️. Join our study at Johns Hopkins exploring how psilocybin—a naturally occurring co….

RT @JHPsychedelics: That’s a wrap on Psychedelic Science 2025! We had a fantastic time presenting our research and connecting with both new….

Join millions who have switched to Grok.

RT @EliWeisman: Honored to have attended my first conference this past week at #CPDD2025 in New Orleans. Huge thank you to @CeydaSayali and….

Live near Baltimore? I'm recruiting for a TMS/EEG study involving psilocybin. Come be part of cutting-edge neuroscience research!.

RT @BWe1ss: Pleasure to a be a part of this timely review examining the relevance and safety of psychedelic therapy for the treatment of pe….

RT @ExistWell: Join the world’s premier psychedelic research center!. My lab at @JHPsychedelics is hiring 3 Research Program Coordinators.….

RT @JHPsychedelics: From entropy measures to serotonin receptors, CPCR Postdoc Nate Heller and Director Fred Barrett (@FredBarrettPhD) offe….

RT @JuhaGogulski: Preprint alert! We asked: does fMRI-guided targeting improve reliability of early TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) in non-mot….

This distinction highlights the need for tailored approaches. For TMS-EEG, focusing on targets with the highest SNR may yield better results than strictly following fMRI connectivity-based methods, particularly in artifact-prone regions like the DLPFC. 10/10.

Our results reveal key differences between TMS-fMRI and TMS-EEG targeting. While fMRI-based targeting optimizes functional connectivity for engaging networks, TMS-EEG needs to prioritize signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to minimize artifacts and maximize reliability. 9/10.

While fMRI-guided individualized targeting improves precision, it didn’t consistently enhance TEP reliability for non-motor regions. This highlights the artifact challenges unique to TMS/EEG in areas like the DLPFC and angular gyrus. 8/10.

M1 is still the benchmark: Motor cortex showed the highest TEP reliability (mean CCC = 0.59). Non-motor regions, especially anterior DLPFC, lagged behind in reliability potentially due to artifacts. 7/10

Using three protocols (single-pulse, SICI, LICI) and two targeting methods (individualized/resting state fMRI-based & Neurosynth-derived coordinates), we compared TEP reliability in these regions to M1. 6/10

We asked: How reliable are TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) in non-motor cortical regions like the DLPFC and angular gyrus? And does fMRI-guided targeting improve this reliability? 5/10

This work represents a leap from fMRI-based TMS targeting into the more artifact-prone realm of TMS/EEG. Let’s talk about what we found and why it matters. 4/10.

While figuring out this system from scratch, I met Pantelis Lioumis at Aalto University who not only offered invaluable insights but also became a collaborator and coauthor on this study along with his team: @JuhaGogulski, Ida Granö. I’m so grateful! 3/10.

The noise in TMS/EEG is thousands of times greater than the signal—a challenge that stems from the complexities of combining TMS pulse with EEG. Coil-induced muscle artifacts, noise, and electrical interference all made me rethink what I thought I knew about neuroimaging. 2/10.

As fMRI researchers, @FredBarrettPhD and I wanted to explore whether individualized target engagement defined by fMRI matters for TMS/EEG. But this was my first time working with TMS/EEG, and what I discovered was. surprising! 1/10

RT @JHPsychedelics: Dr. Ceyda Sayali (@CeydaSayali) is presenting her research investigating the Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Psychedelics….

RT @JHPsychedelics: Thrilled to share a new study in Neuron (@NeuroCellPress) led by CPCR post-doc Dr. Praachi Tiwari (@PraachiTiwari) duri….