Impact of repetitive theta burst stimulation on motor cortex excitability
Open accessAbstract
Theta burst stimulation (TBS) alters cortical excitability in inhibitory or facilitatory directions depending on the pattern of stimulation used. Although continuous TBS (cTBS) decreases motor cortex excitability, intermittent TBS (iTBS) increases excitability by introducing an 8-second stimulation interval after 2 seconds of TBS. The after-effects induced by TBS last from 30 minutes up to 1 hour. Optimization of TBS techniques might be possible through manipulation of a variety of parameters such as number of pulses, stimulus intensity, duration of stimulation, and repetitive stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the after-effects induced by introducing an interval between two TBS interventions to identify more efficient protocols. The study was divided in two groups, iTBS protocols and cTBS protocols, each of them with four sessions: classical TBS, TBS - 2 minutes - TBS, TBS - 5 minutes - TBS, TBS - 20 minutes - TBS. Our results show that cTBS - 20 minutes - cTBS and iTBS - 2 minutes - iTBS resulted in similar after-effects as those accomplished by a single TBS session, whereas a suppression of after-effects was observed in the other break durations. Repeated TBS with short break durations does not seem to be suitable to prolong the duration of excitability changes accomplished by single TBS. These results might be relevant for clinical applications of TBS, when long-lasting excitability alterations are needed.
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?
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].”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 30 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Gamboa, O. L., Antal, A., Laczo, B., Moliadze, V., Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Göttingen (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Gamboa, Olga Lucía
- Venue
- Brain Stimulation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 145-151
- ISSN
- 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-861X
- OpenAlex
- W1991030994
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doaj.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Brain stimulation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (T298/14375/2004, T298/14376/2004)
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GQ 0782, 01GQ0810)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Keywords
- theta burst stimulation, intermittent theta burst stimulation, continuous theta burst stimulation, motor cortex excitability, aftereffects, repetitive stimulation, non-invasive brain stimulation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Psychomotor Performance, 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