Cited by 318Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurological disorders and treatments

Simply longer is not better: reversal of theta burst after-effect with prolonged stimulation

Open access
Gamboa, Olga Lucía, Antal, Andrea, Moliadze, Vera, Paulus, Walter·2010·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

From all rTMS protocols at present, the theta burst stimulation (TBS) is considered the most efficient in terms of number of impulses and intensity required during a given stimulation. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of inhibitory and excitatory TBS protocols on motor cortex excitability when the duration of stimulation was doubled. Fourteen healthy volunteers were tested under four conditions: intermittent theta bust stimulation (iTBS), continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), prolonged intermittent theta bust stimulation (ProiTBS) and prolonged continuous theta burst stimulation (ProcTBS). The prolonged paradigms were twice as long as the conventional TBS protocols. Conventional facilitatory iTBS converted into inhibitory when it was applied for twice as long, while the normally inhibitory cTBS became facilitatory when the stimulation duration was doubled. Our results show that TBS-induced plasticity cannot be deliberately enhanced simply by prolonging TBS protocols. Instead, when stimulating too long, after-effects will be reversed. This finding supplements findings at the short end of the stimulation duration range, where it was shown that conventional cTBS is excitatory in the first half and switches to inhibition only after the full length protocol. It is relevant for clinical applications for which an ongoing need for further protocol improvement is imminent.

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 · 10.1007/s00221-010-2293-4

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Studies demonstrate that this number of pulses results in an optimal window of cortical excitability, and additional pulses may have an inhibitory effect.

    “Studies demonstrate that this number of pulses results in an optimal “window” of cortical excitability, and additional pulses may have an inhibitory effect [59-61].”

    From Frontal Pole Neuromodulation for Impulsivity and Suicidality in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Common Co-Occurring Mental Health Conditions: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Results (iTBS versus ProiTBS; page unavailable) report that conventional intermittent theta-burst stimulation increased motor-cortex excitability, while prolonged stimulation suppressed it. The Introduction says pulse number and other parameters still need evaluation to optimize stimulation, so the study does not establish that the cited pulse count is an optimal window. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Gamboa, O. L., Antal, A., Moliadze, V., & Paulus, W.
Affiliations
University of Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Gamboa, Olga Lucía
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2010-06-22
Volume
204
Issue
2
Pages
181-187
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W2073595961
Cited by
318
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (T298/14376/2004, T298/14375/2004)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GQ0782, 01GQ0810)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
theta burst stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, stimulation duration, motor cortex excitability, long-term potentiation, long-term depression, intermittent theta burst stimulation, continuous theta burst stimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Electric Stimulation, Electromyography, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Neuronal Plasticity, Reaction Time, Theta Rhythm, Long-Term Potentiation, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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