Cited by 763Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesTreatment of Major Depression

Default mode network mechanisms of transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression

Open access
Liston, Conor, Chen, Ashley C., Zebley, Benjamin D., Drysdale, Andrew T., Gordon, Rebecca, Leuchter, Bruce, Voss, Henning U., Casey, B.J. +2 more·2014·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is an established treatment for depression, but its underlying mechanism of action remains unknown. Abnormalities in two large-scale neuronal networks-the frontoparietal central executive network (CEN) and the medial prefrontal-medial parietal default mode network (DMN)-are consistent findings in depression and potential therapeutic targets for TMS. Here, we assessed the impact of TMS on activity in these networks and their relation to treatment response.Methods We used resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure functional connectivity within and between the DMN and CEN in 17 depressed patients, before and after a 5-week course of TMS. Motivated by prior reports, we focused on connectivity seeded from the DLPFC and the subgenual cingulate, a key region closely aligned with the DMN in depression. Connectivity was also compared with a cohort of 35 healthy control subjects.Results Before treatment, functional connectivity in depressed patients was abnormally elevated within the DMN and diminished within the CEN, and connectivity between these two networks was altered. Transcranial magnetic stimulation normalized depression-related subgenual hyperconnectivity in the DMN but did not alter connectivity in the CEN. Transcranial magnetic stimulation also induced anticorrelated connectivity between the DLPFC and medial prefrontal DMN nodes. Baseline subgenual connectivity predicted subsequent clinical improvement.Conclusions Transcranial magnetic stimulation selectively modulates functional connectivity both within and between the CEN and DMN, and modulation of subgenual cingulate connectivity may play an important mechanistic role in alleviating depression. The results also highlight potential neuroimaging biomarkers for predicting treatment response.

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 · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.01.023

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Inhibitory rTMS applied to the DLPFC is associated with decreased DLPFC activity and increased functional connectivity with the dACC.

    “Inhibitory rTMS applied to the DLPFC, beyond its inhibiting effects on the DLPFC itself, is associated with decreased DLPFC activity and increased functional connectivity with the dACC 21,25 .”

    From Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Methods (TMS protocol; page unavailable) explicitly describe 10-Hz excitatory, not inhibitory, stimulation of the left DLPFC. The Methods (MRI data acquisition and analysis; page unavailable) describe decreased DLPFC activity in depression, not as an effect of TMS; the Results (TMS effects on connectivity between the CEN and DMN; page unavailable) report DLPFC–DMN changes, not increased DLPFC–dACC connectivity. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • TMS non-invasively modulates neuronal activity and functional connectivity using a high-intensity magnetic field to induce a brief, focal electric field in the cortex that can either activate or inhibit neurons depending on the pattern of stimulation.

    “Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) non-invasively modulates neuronal activity and functional connectivity [21][22][23] using a highintensity magnetic field to induce a brief, focal electric field in the cortex that can either activate or inhibit neurons depending on the pattern of the stimulation approach.”

    From Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interactions such as mutual inhibition between the activity of the dorsal striatal-SN loop and the ventral striatal reward loop may be important for understanding psychiatric pathology and its heterogeneity.

    “In addition, interactions (such as mutual inhibition) between the activity of the dorsal striatal-SN loop and the ventral striatal reward loop may be important for understanding psychiatric pathology and its heterogeneity”
  • These data provide a biological mechanism by which DLPFC stimulation might reduce craving.

    “These data build upon studies in patients with depression [39,50] and provide a biological mechanism through which DLPFC may be effective at attenuating craving.”

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
Liston, C., Chen, A. C., Zebley, B. D., Drysdale, A. T., Gordon, R., Leuchter, B., Voss, H. U., Casey, B. J., Etkin, A., & Dubin, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Liston, Conor
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
76
Issue
7
Pages
517-526
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987464027
Cited by
763
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 9
FWCI
21.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K99 MH097822, P50-MH079513))
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, depression, default mode network, frontoparietal network, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, subgenual cingulate, functional connectivity, treatment response prediction, neuroimaging biomarkers
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, 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