Cited by 70Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Induction and quantification of prefrontal cortical network plasticity using 5 Hz rTMS and fMRI: RTMS-Induced Prefrontal Cortical Plasticity

Open access
Esslinger, Christine, Schüler, Nadja, Sauer, Carina, Gass, Dagmar, Mier, Daniela, Braun, Urs, Ochs, Elisabeth, Schulze, Thomas G. +3 more·2014·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Neuronal plasticity is crucial for flexible interaction with a changing environment and its disruption is thought to contribute to psychiatric diseases like schizophrenia. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive tool to increase local excitability of neurons and induce short-time functional reorganization of cortical networks. While this has been shown for the motor system, little is known about the short-term plasticity of networks for executive cognition in humans. We examined 12 healthy control subjects in a crossover study with fMRI after real and sham 5 Hz rTMS to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). During scanning, subjects performed an n-back working memory (WM) task and a flanker task engaging cognitive control. Reaction times during the n-back task were significantly shorter after rTMS than after sham stimulation. RTMS compared with sham stimulation caused no activation changes at the stimulation site (right DLPFC) itself, but significantly increased connectivity within the WM network during n-back and reduced activation in the anterior cingulate cortex during the flanker task. Reduced reaction times after real stimulation support an excitatory effect of high-frequency rTMS. Our findings identified plastic changes in prefrontally connected networks downstream of the stimulation site as the substrate of this behavioral effect. Using a multimodal fMRI-rTMS approach, we could demonstrate changes in cortical plasticity in humans during executive cognition. In further studies this approach could be used to study pharmacological, genetic and disease-related alterations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.22165

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In healthy controls, rTMS of SN nodes such as the dlPFC or dmPFC/dACC can enhance or inhibit impulse control on a delay-discounting task and improve cognitive processing on executive functioning tasks.

    “In healthy controls, there is evidence that rTMS of SN nodes such as the dlPFC or dmPFC/dACC can enhance or inhibit impulse control as measured on a delay-discounting task (Cho et al., 2010, 2015; Figner et al., 2010), and improve cognitive processing on executive functioning tasks (Esslinger et al., 2014),”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Esslinger, C., Schüler, N., Sauer, C., Gass, D., Mier, D., Braun, U., Ochs, E., Schulze, T. G., Rietschel, M., Kirsch, P., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy; Central Institute of Mental Health; University of Heidelberg; Mannheim Germany
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09-11
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
140-151
ISSN
1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1958861424
Cited by
70
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 636)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cortical plasticity, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, working memory, cognitive control, executive function, n-back task, flanker task, anterior cingulate cortex, network connectivity, short-term plasticity
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neural Pathways, Neuronal Plasticity, Reaction Time, Prefrontal Cortex, Cross-Over Studies, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

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