Cited by 123Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationNeurological disorders and treatments

Cerebellar theta burst stimulation modulates the neural activity of interconnected parietal and motor areas

Open access
Casula, Elias Paolo, Pellicciari, Maria Concetta, Ponzo, Viviana, Stampanoni Bassi, Mario, Veniero, Domenica, Caltagirone, Carlo, Koch, Giacomo·2016·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Voluntary movement control and execution are regulated by the influence of the cerebellar output over different interconnected cortical areas, through dentato-thalamo connections. In the present study we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography (EEG) to directly assess the effects of cerebellar theta-burst stimulation (TBS) over the controlateral primary motor cortex (M1) and posterior parietal cortex (PPC) in a group of healthy volunteers. We found a TBS-dependent bidirectional modulation over TMS-evoked activity; specifically, cTBS increased whereas iTBS decreased activity between 100 and 200 ms after TMS, in a similar manner over both M1 and PPC areas. On the oscillatory domain, TBS induced specific changes over M1 natural frequencies of oscillation: TMS-evoked alpha activity was decreased by cTBS whereas beta activity was enhanced by iTBS. No effects were observed after sham stimulation. Our data provide novel evidence showing that the cerebellum exerts its control on the cortex likely by impinging on specific set of interneurons dependent on GABA-ergic activity. We show that cerebellar TBS modulates cortical excitability of distant interconnected cortical areas by acting through common temporal, spatial and frequency domains.

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 · 10.1038/srep36191

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • The possibility that CBM-iTBS has differential effects on distinct cognitive functions aligns with prior studies.

    “which aligns with prior studies (Casula et al., 2016; Esterman et al., 2017; Ferrari et al., 2018; Gatti et al., 2021; Lesage et al., 2012; Shinn et al., 2023)”

    From A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for bipolar disorder: Safety, tolerability, mood and cognitive effects (2025) · cites this paper as Casula et al., 2016

    The Results and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) report effects of cerebellar iTBS on neural activity in motor and parietal areas, but do not test distinct cognitive functions. The Discussion says future studies are needed to investigate cerebellar connections during cognitive performance. I searched for differential cognitive effects and cognitive performance in our copy; neither establishes the attributed possibility. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Jones E. G. The thalamus. Springer Science & Business Media (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Casula, E. P., Pellicciari, M. C., Ponzo, V., Stampanoni Bassi, M., Veniero, D., Caltagirone, C., & Koch, G.
Affiliations
  • Fondazione Santa Lucia (IT)
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
  • Policlinico Tor Vergata (IT)
Corresponding author
Koch, Giacomo
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-10-31
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
36191-36191
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2541396679
Cited by
123
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8
FWCI
6.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cineca Institutional Research Information System (Tor Vergata University) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS eCampus Telematic University (Università degli Studi eCampus) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministero della Salute (GR-2009-1591859)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
primary motor cortex, posterior parietal cortex, corticospinal excitability, alpha oscillations, beta oscillations, GABAergic interneurons, cortical oscillations, voluntary movement control, cerebellar-cortical interaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Neuronal Plasticity, Parietal Lobe, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Healthy Volunteers

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