CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 264Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchDeep Brain Stimulation and Movement Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dose-Dependent Effects of Theta Burst rTMS on Cortical Excitability and Resting-State Connectivity of the Human Motor System

Open access
Nettekoven, Charlotte, Volz, Lukas J., Kutscha, Martha, Pool, Eva-Maria, Rehme, Anne K., Eickhoff, Simon B., Fink, Gereon R., Grefkes, Christian·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.4993-13.2014PMC PMC4019799
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Theta burst stimulation (TBS), a specific protocol of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), induces changes in cortical excitability that last beyond stimulation. TBS-induced aftereffects, however, vary between subjects, and the mechanisms underlying these aftereffects to date remain poorly understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether increasing the number of pulses of intermittent TBS (iTBS) (1) increases cortical excitability as measured by motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and (2) alters functional connectivity measured using resting-state fMRI, in a dose-dependent manner. Sixteen healthy, human subjects received three serially applied iTBS blocks of 600 pulses over the primary motor cortex (M1 stimulation) and the parieto-occipital vertex (sham stimulation) to test for dose-dependent iTBS effects on cortical excitability and functional connectivity (four sessions in total). iTBS over M1 increased MEP amplitudes compared with sham stimulation after each stimulation block. Although the increase in MEP amplitudes did not differ between the first and second block of M1 stimulation, we observed a significant increase after three blocks (1800 pulses). Furthermore, iTBS enhanced resting-state functional connectivity between the stimulated M1 and premotor regions in both hemispheres. Functional connectivity between M1 and ipsilateral dorsal premotor cortex further increased dose-dependently after 1800 pulses of iTBS over M1. However, no correlation between changes in MEP amplitudes and functional connectivity was detected. In summary, our data show that increasing the number of iTBS stimulation blocks results in dose-dependent effects at the local level (cortical excitability) as well as at a systems level (functional connectivity) with a dose-dependent enhancement of dorsal premotor cortex-M1 connectivity.

Overview

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.4993-13.2014

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental design. A , Main experiment. Subjects took part in two MEP sessions (M1-iTBS_MEPs, sham-iTBS_MEPs) and two resting-state fMRI sessions (M1-iTBS_rs-fMRI, sham-iTBS_rs-fMRI) on four separate days. Using a withinsubject design, each subject received three serially applied iTBS blocks over M1 (M1 stimulation) and over the parieto-occipital vertex (sham stimulation), each followed by the assessment of MEPs or resting-state fMRI. B , Supplemental control experiment. In a secondexperiment,asubgroupof6subjectsadditionallyreceivedonestimulationoverM1followedbytwostimulationsovertheparietooccipital vertex (supplemental control stimulation) to test for the specificity of additive aftereffects after serial iTBS over M1.
Figure 1 Experimental design. A , Main experiment. Subjects took part in two MEP sessions (M1-iTBS_MEPs, sham-iTBS_MEPs) and two resting-state fMRI sessions (M1-iTBS_rs-fMRI, sham-iTBS_rs-fMRI) on four separate days. Using a withinsubject design, each subject received three serially applied iTBS blocks over M1 (M1 stimulation) and over the parieto-occipital vertex (sham stimulation), each followed by the assessment of MEPs or resting-state fMRI. B , Supplemental control experiment. In a secondexperiment,asubgroupof6subjectsadditionallyreceivedonestimulationoverM1followedbytwostimulationsovertheparietooccipital vertex (supplemental control stimulation) to test for the specificity of additive aftereffects after serial iTBS over M1.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 5 Changes in rsFC. M1 compared with sham stimulation, normalized to baseline values. Color bar represents t values. Onlyclusters surviving a cluster level FWE correction ( p ≤ 0.05) are shown. A , Main experiment. M1-iTBS led to significantly higher changesinrsFCofM1withbilateralpremotorareas(dPMC,SMA)afteralldosesaswellaswithsomatosensoryandsuperiorparietal cortex. B , Supplemental control experiment. iTBS1800 over M1 led to significantly higher correlations in the time courses between M1and premotor areas (dPMC, SMA) as well as somatosensory/superior parietal cortex compared with a single M1-iTBS application followed by two sham stimulations over the vertex (supplemental control stimulation).
Figure 5 Changes in rsFC. M1 compared with sham stimulation, normalized to baseline values. Color bar represents t values. Onlyclusters surviving a cluster level FWE correction ( p ≤ 0.05) are shown. A , Main experiment. M1-iTBS led to significantly higher changesinrsFCofM1withbilateralpremotorareas(dPMC,SMA)afteralldosesaswellaswithsomatosensoryandsuperiorparietal cortex. B , Supplemental control experiment. iTBS1800 over M1 led to significantly higher correlations in the time courses between M1and premotor areas (dPMC, SMA) as well as somatosensory/superior parietal cortex compared with a single M1-iTBS application followed by two sham stimulations over the vertex (supplemental control stimulation).CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 6 ROI analysis. Dose-dependent changes in rsFC. Contrasts between the increase in rsFC compared with baseline between iTBS1800 and ( A ) iTBS600 or ( B ) iTBS1200. Color bar represents t values. The cross indicates the coordinate where dose-dependent increases were found for ipsilateral dPMC-M1 rsFC. p ≤ 0.05, small-volume FWE-corrected at the voxel level.
Figure 6 ROI analysis. Dose-dependent changes in rsFC. Contrasts between the increase in rsFC compared with baseline between iTBS1800 and ( A ) iTBS600 or ( B ) iTBS1200. Color bar represents t values. The cross indicates the coordinate where dose-dependent increases were found for ipsilateral dPMC-M1 rsFC. p ≤ 0.05, small-volume FWE-corrected at the voxel level.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 264

Related

Metadata

Authors
Nettekoven, C., Volz, L. J., Kutscha, M., Pool, E.-M., Rehme, A. K., Eickhoff, S. B., Fink, G. R., & Grefkes, C.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research (DE)
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2014-05-14
Volume
34
Issue
20
Pages
6849-6859
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.4993-13.2014
PMC
PMC4019799
OpenAlex
W2077740203
Cited by
264
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6
FWCI
7.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LA 3071/3‐1, KFO219-TP8, 816/4-1, 3285/2-1, GR 3285/2‐1, 3071/3-1, KFO-219, EI 816/4–1)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-MH074457-01A1, MH074457)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH074457)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Deep Brain Stimulation and Movement Disorders
Keywords
theta burst stimulation, intermittent theta burst stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, dose-dependent effects, cortical excitability, motor evoked potentials, resting-state functional connectivity, primary motor cortex, dorsal premotor cortex, motor system, aftereffects
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Nerve Net, Neuronal Plasticity, Theta Rhythm, Single-Blind Method, Cross-Over Studies, 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