Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 160, Issue 1, pp 118–128 | Cite as

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the visual system. I. The psychophysics of visual suppression

  • Thomas KammerEmail author
  • Klaas Puls
  • Hans Strasburger
  • N. Jeremy Hill
  • Felix A. Wichmann
Research Article


When applied over the occipital pole, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) disrupts visual perception and induces phosphenes. Both the underlying mechanisms and the brain structures involved are still unclear. The first part of the study characterizes the suppressive effect of TMS by psychophysical methods. Luminance increment thresholds for orientation discrimination were determined in four subjects using an adaptive staircase procedure. Coil position was controlled with a stereotactic positioning device. Threshold values were modulated by TMS, reaching a maximum effect at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of approx. 100 ms after visual target presentation. Stronger TMS pulses increased the maximum threshold while decreasing the SOA producing the maximum effect. Slopes of the psychometric function were flattened with TMS masking by a factor of 2, compared to control experiments in the absence of TMS. No change in steepness was observed in experiments using a light flash as the mask instead of TMS. Together with the finding that at higher TMS intensities, threshold elevation occurs even with shorter SOAs, this suggests lasting inhibitory processes as masking mechanisms, contradicting the assumption that the phosphene as excitatory equivalent causes masking. In the companion contribution to this one we present perimetric measurements and phosphene forms as a function of the stimulation site in the brain and discuss the putative generator structures.


Occipital cortex Visual masking Threshold modulation Psychometric function Slope 



We thank Sandra Beck, Kuno Kirschfeld, and Hans-Günther Nusseck for support and for many fruitful discussions.


  1. Amassian VE, Cracco RQ, Maccabee PJ, Cracco JB, Rudell A, Eberle L (1989) Suppression of visual perception by magnetic coil stimulation of human occipital cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 74:458–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amassian VE, Cracco RQ, Maccabee PJ, Cracco JB, Rudell AP, Eberle L (1993) Unmasking human visual perception with the magnetic coil and its relationship to hemispheric asymmetry. Brain Res 605:312–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985) Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet I:1106–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckers G, Hömberg V (1991) Impairment of visual perception and visual short term memory scanning by transcranial magnetic stimulation of occipital cortex. Exp Brain Res 87:421–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckers G, Zeki S (1995) The consequences of inactivating areas V1 and V5 on visual motion perception. Brain 118:49–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolz J, Rosner G, Wässle H (1982) Response latency of brisk-sustained (X) and brisk-transient (Y) cells in the cat retina. J Physiol (Lond) 382:171–190Google Scholar
  7. Corthout E, Uttl B, Walsh V, Hallett M, Cowey A (1999a) Timing of activity in early visual cortex as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroreport 10:2631–2634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Corthout E, Uttl B, Ziemann U, Cowey A, Hallett M (1999b) Two periods of processing in the (circum) striate visual cortex as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia 37:137–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Corthout E, Uttl B, Juan CH, Hallett M, Cowey A (2000) Suppression of vision by transcranial magnetic stimulation: a third mechanism. Neuroreport 11:2345–2349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorner-Schandl F, Durst W, Kolling G, Leo-Kottler B (1993) Rasterperimetrie mit dem Tübinger Automatik Perimeter. Universitäts-Augenklinik, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuhr P, Agostino R, Hallett M (1991) Spinal motor neuron excitability during the silent period after cortical stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 81:257–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallett M (2000) Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the human brain. Nature 406:147–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hotson J, Braun D, Herzberg W, Boman D (1994) Transcranial magnetic stimulation of extrastriate cortex degrades human motion direction discrimination. Vision Res 34:2115–2123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Inghilleri M, Berardelli A, Cruccu G, Manfredi M (1993) Silent period evoked by transcranial stimulation of the human cortex and cervicomedullary junction. J Physiol (Lond) 466:521–534Google Scholar
  15. Jaskowski P, Pruszewicz A, Swidzinski P (1990) VEP latency and some properties of simple motor reaction-time distribution. Psychol Res 52:28–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kammer T (1999) Phosphenes and transient scotomas induced by magnetic stimulation of the occipital lobe: their topographic relationship. Neuropsychologia 37:191–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kammer T, Nusseck HG (1998) Are recognition deficits following occipital lobe TMS explained by raised detection thresholds? Neuropsychologia 36:1161–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kammer T, Lehr L, Kirschfeld K (1999) Cortical visual processing is temporally dispersed by luminance in human subjects. Neurosci Lett 263:133–136Google Scholar
  19. Kammer T, Beck S, Thielscher A, Laubis-Herrmann U, Topka H (2001) Motor thresholds in humans. A transcranial magnetic stimulation study comparing different pulseforms, current directions and stimulator types. Clin Neurophysiol 112:250–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kammer T, Puls K, Erb M, Grodd W (2004) TMS in the visual system. II. Characterization of induced phosphenes and scotomas. Exp Brain Res (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  21. Kesten H (1958) Accelerated stochastic-approximation. Ann Math Stat 29:41–59Google Scholar
  22. King-Smith PE, Rose D (1997) Principles of an adaptive method for measuring the slope of the psychometric function. Vision Res 37:1595–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kontsevich LL, Tyler CW (1999) Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold. Vision Res 39:2729–2737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lennie P (1981) The physiological basis of variations in visual latency. Vision Res 21:815–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mansfield RJ (1973) Latency functions in human vision. Vision Res 13:2219–2234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Masur H, Papke K, Oberwittler C (1993) Suppression of visual perception by transcranial magnetic stimulation—experimental findings in healthy subjects and patients with optic neuritis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 86:259–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Maunsell JH, Gibson JR (1992) Visual response latencies in striate cortex of the macaque monkey. J Neurophysiol 68:1332–1344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer BU, Diehl RR, Steinmetz H, Britton TC, Benecke R (1991) Magnetic stimuli applied over motor cortex and visual cortex: influence of coil position and field polarity on motor responses, phosphenes, and eye movements. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 43:121–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller MB, Fendrich R, Eliassen JC, Demirel S, Gazzaniga MS (1996) Transcranial magnetic stimulation—delays in visual suppression due to luminance changes. Neuroreport 7:1740–1744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Moliadze V, Zhao Y, Eysel UT, Funke K (2003) Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on single-unit activity in the cat primary visual cortex. J Physiol (Lond) 553:665–679Google Scholar
  31. Osaka N, Yamamoto M (1978) VEP latency and RT as power functions of luminance in the peripheral visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 44:785–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Paulus W, Korinth S, Wischer S, Tergau F (1999) Differential inhibition of chromatic and achromatic perception by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human visual cortex. Neuroreport 10:1245–1248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Strasburger H (2001) Invariance of the psychometric function for character recognition across the visual field. Percept Psychophys 63:1356–1376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Treutwein B (1995) Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res 35:2503–2522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Treutwein B, Strasburger H (1999) Fitting the psychometric function. Percept Psychophys 61:87–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Vaughan HGJ, Costa LD, Gilden L (1966) The functional relation of visual evoked response and reaction time to stimulus intensity. Vision Res 6:645–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001a) The psychometric function. I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001b) The psychometric function. II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Percept Psychophys 63:1314–1329PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kammer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Klaas Puls
    • 2
  • Hans Strasburger
    • 3
  • N. Jeremy Hill
    • 4
  • Felix A. Wichmann
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurobiologyMax Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Generation Research Program, Human Studies CenterLudwig Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Empirical InferenceMax Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations