Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation impairs verbal working memory
Abstract
Previous functional magnetic resonance imaging and patient studies indicate cerebellar participation in verbal working memory. In particular, event‐related functional magnetic resonance imaging showed superior cerebellar activation during the initial encoding phase of the Sternberg task. This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging–guided transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to test whether disruption of the right superior cerebellum (hemispheric lobule VI/Crus I) impairs verbal working memory performance. Single‐pulse TMS was administered immediately after letter presentation during the encoding phase on half the trials. Sham TMS and a Motor Control task were included to test for general distraction and nonmemory‐related motor effects. Results showed no effects of TMS on accuracy, but reaction times (RTs) on correct trials were significantly increased on TMS relative to non‐TMS trials for the Verbal Working Memory and Motor Control tasks. Additional analyses showed that the increased RT was significantly greater for Verbal Working Memory than for the motor task, suggesting that the effect on working memory was not caused by interference with finger responses. Sham TMS did not affect RTs, indicating that the potentially distracting effects of the postencoding click did not contribute to the increase in RT. The observed effects from cerebellar disruption are consistent with proposed cerebrocerebellar involvement in verbal working memory. Ann Neurol 2005;58:553–560
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cerebellar regions of interest for mood and cognition modulation are relatively superficial.
“the cerebellar regions of interest for mood and cognition modulation are relatively superficial (Desmond et al., 2005; Hardwick et al., 2014; Lesage et al., 2012; Theoret et al., 2001)”
From A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for bipolar disorder: Safety, tolerability, mood and cognitive effects (2025) · cites this paper as Desmond et al., 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 65 · Cited by 141
- Authors
- Desmond, J. E., Chen, S. H. A., & Shieh, P. B.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- National Taiwan University (TW)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Desmond, John E.
- Venue
- Annals of Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-09-21
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 553-560
- ISSN
- 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-8249
- OpenAlex
- W2164822985
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH 60234, R01MH060234)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- cerebellum, verbal working memory, Crus I, transcranial magnetic stimulation, Sternberg task, reaction time
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cerebellum, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Magnetics, Male, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Reaction Time, Verbal Learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review