Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves facial affect recognition in schizophrenia
Open accessAbstract
Objective Facial affect recognition, a basic building block of social cognition, is often impaired in schizophrenia. Poor facial affect recognition is closely related to poor functional outcome; however, neither social cognitive impairments nor functional outcome are sufficiently improved by antipsychotic drug treatment alone. Adjunctive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to enhance cognitive functioning in both healthy individuals and in people with neuropsychiatric disorders and to ameliorate clinical symptoms in psychiatric disorders, but its effects on social cognitive impairments in schizophrenia have not yet been studied. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of sham-controlled rTMS on facial affect recognition in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Method Inpatients (N = 36) on stable antipsychotic treatment were randomly assigned to double-blind high-frequency (10 Hz) rTMS or sham stimulation for a total of ten sessions over two weeks. In the verum group, each session consisted of 10 000 stimuli (20 trains of 5 s) applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at 110% of motor threshold. Facial affect recognition was assessed before (T0) and after (T1) the ten sessions. Results Facial affect recognition improved significantly more after rTMS (accuracy change: mean = 8.9%, SD = 6.0%) than after sham stimulation (mean = 1.6%, SD = 3.5; Cohen's d = 1.45). There was no correlation with clinical improvement. Conclusion Our results indic…
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?
Only one study investigating the effect of TMS on social cognition was retrieved, so no meta-analysis could be conducted.
“As we retrieved only one study investigating the effect of TMS on social cognition (Wölwer et al., 2014), no meta-analysis could be conducted.”
From Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wölwer et al., 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 61 · Cited by 99
- Authors
- Wölwer, W., Lowe, A., Brinkmeyer, J., Streit, M., Habakuck, M., Agelink, M. W., Mobascher, A., Gaebel, W., & Cordes, J.
- Affiliations
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Wölwer, Wolfgang
- Venue
- Brain Stimulation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 559-563
- ISSN
- 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-861X
- OpenAlex
- W2032431774
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.47
- 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)
- Funders
- Medtronic
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Keywords
- repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, facial expression recognition, schizophrenia, social cognition, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, high-frequency rTMS, antipsychotic drugs, functional outcome, adjunctive therapy
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Affect, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Prefrontal Cortex, 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
