Experiment Three: Statistical Analysis:

The participants’ perceived illusory flashes across the different ISIs were used to

calculate the tactile temporal windows of integration. This corresponded to the maximum

ISI in which the visual illusion was reliably perceived. Therefore, we calculated the

percentage of illusory trials (i.e. trials where two flashes were perceived) and plotted them

as a function of the ISI values. This was done separately for both pre- and post-ccPAS trials,

resulting in two different TWI values being collected. A psychometric sigmoid function [y = a

+ b/(1 + exp( - (x - c) / d)); a = upper asymptote; b = lower asymptote; c = inflection point; d = Figure 1. Experiment Three Procedure:

A. Pre-ccPAS DFI: Whilst viewing the flashing disc (12 ms duration) participants also experienced two brief taps to

their left index finger (both with a 7 ms duration). These tactile stimuli were separated by a variable ISI (36 ms - 204 ms). Participants were asked to ignore the tactile stimuli and state aloud whether they perceived one or two flashes.

B. ccPAS timing calculation: EEG was concurrently recorded during both DFI tasks. Peak beta frequency at area V1

(Oz) was uncovered (f), this was only taken during the left hand condition. This was subsequently converted to time t via the following formula t = 1000/(f).

C. ccPAS Procedure: 15-minute TMS protocol takes place, whereby first coil is placed on the right somatosensory

(C4) cortex and the second is placed on area V1 (Oz). Spacing between first coil pulse (C4) and second coil pulse (Oz) corresponds to time t uncovered in step D. There were 90 pulse pairs, with each pair being separated by a delay of 10 seconds.

D. Post-ccPAS DFI: Participants underwent the same tactile-induced DFI task (after a 30 minute waiting period), this

was with identical parameters to the previous task.

Figure 1. Experiment Three Procedure:

E. Pre-ccPAS DFI: Whilst viewing the flashing disc (12 ms duration) participants also experienced two brief taps to

their left of right index finger (both with a 7 ms duration). These tactile stimuli were separated by a variable ISI (36 ms - 204 ms). Participants were asked to ignore the tactile stimuli and state aloud whether they perceived one or two flashes.

F. ccPAS timing calculation: EEG was concurrently recorded during both DFI tasks. Peak beta frequency at area V1

(Oz) was uncovered (f), this was only taken during the left hand condition. This was subsequently converted to time t via the following formula t = 1000/f.

G. ccPAS Procedure: 15-minute TMS protocol takes place, whereby first coil is placed on the right somatosensory

(C4) cortex and the second is placed on area V1 (Oz). Spacing between first coil pulse (C4) and second coil pulse (Oz) corresponds to time t uncovered in step D. There were 90 pulse pairs, with each pair being separated by a delay of 10 seconds.

H. Post-ccPAS DFI: Participants underwent the same tactile-induced DFI tasks (after a 30 minute waiting period), this

140

slope] was then fitted to each percentage distribution returning a corresponding inflection point (centre c) of the fitted sigmoid. This value was taken to represent the point of decay of

the illusion, which subsequently taken as an index of the TWI. Ergo we could assume that

when stimuli pairs were spaced apart by more than this corresponding centre point the

illusory response would begin to significantly decay.

EEG data analysis:

EEG activity was concurrently recorded during task execution, this was subsequently

analysed to calculate peak beta frequency peaks, for each participant. By calculating the

individual beta frequency peaks prior to TMS commencing we were able to base the pulse

timing of the TMS directly on each person’s individual beta frequency. This meant that each

ccPAS protocol was tailored directly to the participant’s individual neural activity.

For all participants, 64 channel EEG was recorded at a sampling rate of 500 Hz. The

EEG signal was re-referenced offline to the average of all scalp electrodes. Data was then

subsequently segmented into 2000 ms epochs, time locked to and preceding the visual

stimulus onset. This resulted in 150 epochs of pre-stimulus oscillatory activity for both of the

frequency bands assessed, this was performed separately both pre- and post-ccPAS. Each

single epoch was visually inspected for artefacts (from eye blinks, muscle contractions,

electrical interference etc.) and was manually rejected where necessary. For each

participant and for all of the recorded electrodes a full power spectrum was obtained

through a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) with a zero padded window (nominal frequency

resolution 0.125 Hz). Finally, for each participant and task (pre-ccPAS and post-ccPAS) EEG

141

the visual cortex, as calculated at electrode Oz. The peak beta frequency was determined

for each participant as the value corresponding to the maximum peak frequency within the

beta frequency range (i.e. 12 – 25 Hz). Finally, for each participant the speed (in ms) of one

single beta cycle was calculated using this peak frequency data (in Hz).

Difference in electrophysical data pre- and post-ccPAS:

We calculated the IBF value (using the methods as described above) for both pre-

and post-ccPAS conditions. This was done in order for us to assess the difference in beta

processing speed (as measured in visual regions) between these pre- and post-ccPAS

conditions. According to our hypothesis we should expect to see no change in beta speed

post-ccPAS. In order to test for this a mixed-factor ANOVA was performed comparing the

change in beta frequency in this current investigation with the change observed in the

previous investigation. With a corresponding paired t-test in order to test for simple main

effect for the control condition only (we already know the experimental condition was

significant). We expect to find a significant interaction between study condition (control vs.

experimental) and TMS condition (pre-ccPAS vs. post-ccPAS) on the speed of individual beta

processes. We also expect to find no significant difference post-ccPAS in the speed of these

beta processes. If our results are in line with our hypothesis then this would go some way to

142

Difference in behaviour pre- and post-ccPAS:

We calculated the TWI (using the methods described above), in order to assess the

difference between these pre- and post-ccPAS tactile DFI tasks. A mixed-factor ANOVA will

be performed in order to directly compare the change in the TWI size in this control

investigation with the change observed in the previous experimental condition. Once again

a corresponding paired t-test will be conducted in order to test for simple main effects for

the control condition only (we already know the experimental condition was significant). We

expect to find a significant interaction between study condition (control vs. experimental)

and TMS condition (pre-ccPAS vs. post-ccPAS) on the size of the temporal window of

integration for the illusion. We also expect to find no significant difference post-ccPAS in the

size of the TWI. If this is indeed found then this would demonstrate further evidence of a

causal relationship between IBF and the TWI for the tactile-induced DFI and would provide

evidence to once again support the efficacy of the methods that we utilised in the previous

investigation.

Coherence analysis:

Much like the previous investigation we will also conduct an analysis of coherence

between somatosensory and visual sensors in order to assess any change in this measure

from pre to post-ccPAS. This will be done using the correlation/autocorrelation (also

referred to as the Magnitude-squared Correlation Coefficient) method via the use of

BrainVision Analyzer (BrainProducts GmbH, Gilching, Germany). This will be performed

between the right somatosensory area (c4) and visual area V1 (Oz), exclusively using the

143

Coh (c1, c2) (f) = | Cov (c1, c2) (f) | ² / ( | Cov (c1, c1) (f) | | Cov (c2, c2) (f) | ) In conjunction with:

Cov (c1, c2) (f) = Σ (c1, i (f) – avg (c1 (f) ) ) (c2, i (f) – avg (c2 (f) ) )

Here, totalling is carried out via the segment number i. Formation of the average also

relates to segments with a fixed frequency f and a fixed channel c. This should tell us the

degree to which the two areas of the brain are communicating with each other using this

key frequency. Here we expect post-ccPAS measures of coherence between right

somatosensory cortex and V1 to be the same as pre-ccPAS measures.