Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation shows longitudinal improvements in memory in patients with treatment-resistant depression
Open accessAbstract
Background Cognitive dysfunction (CD) is a commonly reported symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) tend to experience greater rates of CD; however, treatment options are limited. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective in treating affective symptoms in patients with TRD, but its potential effect on CD in TRD has not been established. Objectives This study sought to establish the potential cognitive benefits of rTMS in patients with TRD. Materials and methods This study used data from a noninferiority clinical trial investigating two excitatory rTMS protocols to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in unipolar outpatients with TRD. Cognitive testing was performed at baseline and three months posttreatment in 47 patients and a demographically matched cohort of 22 healthy volunteers. Changes in cognitive performance from baseline to posttreatment were assessed using repeated-measures analysis of variance, using both normative and individualized cognitive scoring methods. Results Patients with baseline neurocognitive dysfunction showed significant changes in verbal memory at three months posttreatment when using individualized cognitive scoring. Furthermore, improvement in verbal memory within this subset was associated with improvements in affective symptoms. Limitations This analysis was performed on a relatively small sample of patients with TRD who were not prescreened for CD and did not include a clinical comparator group. Conclusions rTMS may be associated with improvements in verbal memory in patients with TRD who present with global CD and who are clinical responders to the treatment. These findings warrant replication in a larger sample as well as further investigations into the neural mechanisms of cognitive improvement after rTMS.
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?
Cognitive improvements following rTMS have been observed in younger adults with depression across various domains including learning and memory, attention, executive function, and psychomotor processing speed.
“Cognitive improvements following rTMS have been observed in younger adults with depression across various domains including learning and memory,16–18 attention, 19 executive function19–24 and psychomotor processing speed.”
Improvements in verbal learning may be secondary to improvement in mood.
“This association has also been observed in prior rTMS studies,17,36 suggesting that improvements in verbal learning may be secondary to improvement in mood.”
rTMS is considered cognitively safe with mixed evidence regarding its potential for cognitive enhancing properties.
“Importantly, rTMS is considered cognitively safe with mixed evidence regarding its potential for cognitive enhancing properties (Gregory et al., 2022;Kavanaugh et al., 2018;Martin et al., 2017;Schulze-Rauschenbach et al., 2005;Serafini et al., 2015;Wall et al., 2013;Yildiz et al., 2023).”
From Neurocognitive effects of theta burst stimulation for treatment-resistant depression in adults: A systematic review and recommendations for future research (2025) · cites this paper as Gregory et al., 2022
While the neurocognitive effects of standard rTMS have been well-studied, a dearth of evidence exists related to neurocognition in TBS for TRD.
“While the neurocognitive effects of standard rTMS have been wellstudied (Gregory et al., 2022;Schulze-Rauschenbach et al., 2005;Yildiz et al., 2023), a dearth of evidence exists related to neurocognition in TBS for TRD.”
From Neurocognitive effects of theta burst stimulation for treatment-resistant depression in adults: A systematic review and recommendations for future research (2025) · cites this paper as Gregory et al., 2022
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 60 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Gregory, E. C., Torres, I. J., Blumberger, D. M., Downar, J., Daskalakis, Z. J., & Vila-Rodriguez, F.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
- University Health Network (CA)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 596-605
- ISSN
- 1094-7159 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4206350988
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Keywords
- repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, treatment-resistant depression, cognitive impairment, verbal memory, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, major depressive disorder
- MeSH terms
- Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, 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