CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeurological disorders and treatments

Modulation of Fronto-Striatal Functional Connectivity Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Open access
Alkhasli, Isabel, Sakreida, Katrin, Mottaghy, Felix M., Binkofski, Ferdinand·2019·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00190PMC PMC6585467
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background The fronto-striatal network is involved in various motor, cognitive and emotional processes, such as spatial attention, working memory, decision-making and emotion regulation. Intermittent theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation (iTBS) has been shown to modulate functional connectivity of brain networks. Long stimulation intervals, as well as high stimulation intensities are typically applied in transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for mood disorders. The role of stimulation intensity on network function and homeostasis has not been explored systematically yet. Objective We aimed to modulate fronto-striatal connectivity by applying iTBS at different intensities to the left dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We measured individual and group changes by comparing resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) pre-iTBS und post iTBS. Differential effects of individual sub- versus supra-resting motor-threshold stimulation intensities were assessed. Methods Sixteen healthy subjects underwent excitatory iTBS at two intensities (90 % and 120 % of individual resting motor threshold) on separate days. 600 pulses (2 s trains, 8 s pauses, duration of 3 minutes, 20 seconds) were applied over the left DLPFC. Directly before and 7 min after stimulation, task-free rsfMRI sessions, lasting 10 min each, were conducted. Individual seed-to-seed functional connectivity changes were calculated for ten fronto-striatal and amygdala regions of interest with the SPM toolbox DPABI. Results Sub-threshold-iTBS increased functional connectivity directly between the left DLPFC and the left and right caudate, respectively, as well as between the right DLPFC and the left caudate. Indirectly, functional connectivity between the right putamen and the left nucleus accumbens and the left amygdala, respectively, was increased. Supra-threshold stimulation did not change fronto-striatal functional connectivity, but only increased functional connectivity between the left amygdala and the caudate nuclei, as well as the left putamen, respectively. Conclusion A short iTBS protocol applied at sub-threshold intensities was not only sufficient, but favourable in order to increase bilateral fronto-striatal functional connectivity, while minimising side effects. Decreased functional connectivity after supra-threshold stimulation was possibly caused by network homeostatic effects.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00190

Cites

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?

  • iTBS at 90% vs 110% of RMT to the DLPFC results in different functional connectivity activation patterns.

    “iTBS at 90% vs 110% of RMT to the DLPFC has also been shown to result in different functional connectivity activation patterns (Alkhasli, Sakreida, Mottaghy, & Binkofski, 2019).”

    From Investigation of neurobiological responses to theta burst stimulation during recovery from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) (2023) · cites this paper as Alkhasli, Sakreida, Mottaghy, & Binkofski, 2019

    The Methods and Results describe iTBS over the left DLPFC at 90% and 120% of resting motor threshold, with different functional-connectivity effects. They do not support the claimed 90% versus 110% comparison. The Discussion also cautions that increased connectivity does not automatically mean increased activation of a brain area. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 65 · Cited by 43

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Angelucci A. Bijanzadeh M. Nurminen L. Federer F. Merlin S. Bressloff P. C. (2017). Circuits and mechanisms for surround modulation in visual cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 40, 425– 451. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031418 28471714 PMC5697758 · DOI
  2. Aungst J. L. Heyward P. M. Puche A. C. Karnup S. V. Hayar A. Szabo G.. (2003). Centre-surround inhibition among olfactory bulb glomeruli. Nature 426, 623– 629. 10.1038/nature02185 14668854 · DOI
  3. Benjamini Y. Hochberg Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289– 300. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. Benninger D. H. Berman B. Houdayer E. Pal N. Luckenbaugh D. Schneider L.. (2011). Intermittent theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of Parkinson disease. Neurology 76, 601– 609. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820ce6bb 21321333 PMC3053339 · DOI
  5. Beste C. Ness V. Lukas C. Hoffmann R. Stüwe S. Falkenstein M.. (2012). Mechanisms mediating parallel action monitoring in fronto-striatal circuits. Neuroimage 62, 137– 146. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.019 22617828 · DOI
  6. Bestmann S. Baudewig J. Siebner H. R. Rothwell J. C. Frahm J. (2005). BOLD MRI responses to repetitive TMS over human dorsal premotor cortex. Neuroimage 28, 22– 29. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.027 16002305 · DOI
  7. Bohning D. E. Shastri A. Wassermann E. M. Ziemann U. Lorberbaum J. P. Nahas Z.. (2000). BOLD-f MRI response to single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 11, 569– 574. 10.1002/1522-2586(200006)11:6<569::aid-jmri1>3.0.co;2-3 10862054 · DOI
  8. Bouyer J. Park D. Joh T. Pickel V. (1984). Chemical and structural analysis of the relation between cortical inputs and tyrosine hydroxylase-containing terminals in rat neostriatum. Brain Res. 302, 267– 275. 10.1016/0006-8993(84)90239-7 6145508 · DOI
  9. Breitenstein C. Daum I. Ackermann H. (1998). Emotional processing following cortical and subcortical brain damage: contribution of the fronto-striatal circuitry. Behav. Neurol. 11, 29– 42. 10.1155/1998/579029 11568400 · DOI
  10. Brunelin J. Szekely D. Costes N. Mondino M. Bougerol T. Saoud M.. (2011). Theta burst stimulation in the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and striatal dopamine release: an iTBS-[11C] raclopride PET case study. Schizophr. Res. 131, 264– 265. 10.1016/j.schres.2011.05.019 21669513 · DOI
  11. Choi E. Y. Yeo B. T. Buckner R. L. (2012). The organization of the human striatum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J. Neurophysiol. 108, 2242– 2263. 10.1152/jn.00270.2012 22832566 PMC3545026 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cohen J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
  13. Courtney K. E. Ghahremani D. G. Ray L. A. (2013). Fronto-striatal functional connectivity during response inhibition in alcohol dependence. Addict. Biol. 18, 593– 604. 10.1111/adb.12013 23240858 PMC3683582 · DOI
  14. Cubillo A. Halari R. Ecker C. Giampietro V. Taylor E. Rubia K. (2010). Reduced activation and inter-regional functional connectivity of fronto-striatal networks in adults with childhood Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and persisting symptoms during tasks of motor inhibition and cognitive switching. J. Psychiatr. Res. 44, 629– 639. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.11.016 20060129 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Curtis C. E. D’Esposito M. (2003). Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 415– 423. 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00197-9 12963473 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Di Martino A. Scheres A. Margulies D. S. Kelly A. Uddin L. Q. Shehzad Z.. (2008). Functional connectivity of human striatum: a resting state FMRI study. Cereb. Cortex 18, 2735– 2747. 10.1093/cercor/bhn041 18400794 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Duprat R. Desmyter S. van Heeringen K. Van den Abbeele D. Tandt H. Bakic J.. (2016). Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation treatment in medication-resistant major depression: a fast road to remission? J. Affect. Disord. 200, 6– 14. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.04.015 27107779 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Effnert I. Sakreida K. Binkofski F. Mottaghy F. (2016a). “ EP 71. The effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on cortico-striatal connectivity,” in 60th Annual Meeting of the German Society for Clinical Neurophysiology and Functional Imaging (DGKN) (Düsseldorf: Elsevier).
  19. Effnert I. Sakreida K. Mottaghy F. Binkofski F. (2016b). “ P236 The effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation over the prefrontal cortex on resting-state fronto-striatal connectivity,” in 6th International Conference on Transcranial Brain Stimulation (TBS) (Göttingen: Elsevier).
  20. Fitzgerald P. B. Maller J. J. Hoy K. E. Thomson R. Daskalakis Z. J. (2009). Exploring the optimal site for the localization of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in brain stimulation experiments. Brain Stimul. 2, 234– 237. 10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.002 20633422 · DOI
  21. Glenn A. L. Raine A. Schug R. A. Young L. Hauser M. (2009). Increased DLPFC activity during moral decision-making in psychopathy. Mol. Psychiatry 14, 909– 911. 10.1038/mp.2009.76 19096450 · DOI
  22. Heller A. S. Johnstone T. Shackman A. J. Light S. N. Peterson M. J. Kolden G. G.. (2009). Reduced capacity to sustain positive emotion in major depression reflects diminished maintenance of fronto-striatal brain activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 106, 22445– 22450. 10.1073/pnas.0910651106 20080793 PMC2796908 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Huang Y.-Z. Edwards M. J. Rounis E. Bhatia K. P. Rothwell J. C. (2005). Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex. Neuron 45, 201– 206. 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.12.033 15664172 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Janicak P. G. Dokucu M. E. (2015). Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 11, 1549– 1560. 10.2147/NDT.S67477 26170668 PMC4492646 · DOI
  25. Johnson K. A. Baig M. Ramsey D. Lisanby S. H. Avery D. McDonald W. M.. (2013). Prefrontal rTMS for treating depression: location and intensity results from the OPT-TMS multi-site clinical trial. Brain Stimul. 6, 108– 117. 10.1016/j.brs.2012.02.003 22465743 PMC3573221 · DOI
  26. Kanno M. Matsumoto M. Togashi H. Yoshioka M. Mano Y. (2003). Effects of acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on extracellular serotonin concentration in the rat prefrontal cortex. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 93, 451– 457. 10.1254/jphs.93.451 14737016 · DOI
  27. Kanno M. Matsumoto M. Togashi H. Yoshioka M. Mano Y. (2004). Effects of acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on dopamine release in the rat dorsolateral striatum. J. Neurol. Sci. 217, 73– 81. 10.1016/j.jns.2003.08.013 14675613 · DOI
  28. Karreman M. Moghaddam B. (1996). The prefrontal cortex regulates the basal release of dopamine in the limbic striatum: an effect mediated by ventral tegmental area. J. Neurochem. 66, 589– 598. 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020589.x 8592128 · DOI
  29. Keck M. Welt T. Müller M. Erhardt A. Ohl F. Toschi N.. (2002). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation increases the release of dopamine in the mesolimbic and mesostriatal system. Neuropharmacology 43, 101– 109. 10.1016/s0028-3908(02)00069-2 12213264 · DOI
  30. Lang N. Siebner H. R. Ernst D. Nitsche M. A. Paulus W. Lemon R. N.. (2004). Preconditioning with transcranial direct current stimulation sensitizes the motor cortex to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation and controls the direction of after-effects. Biol. Psychiatry 56, 634– 639. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.07.017 15522246 · DOI
  31. Leh S. E. Ptito A. Chakravarty M. M. Strafella A. P. (2007). Fronto-striatal connections in the human brain: a probabilistic diffusion tractography study. Neurosci. Lett. 419, 113– 118. 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.04.049 17485168 PMC5114128 · DOI
  32. Levy B. J. Wagner A. D. (2011). Cognitive control and right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex: reflexive reorienting, motor inhibition and action updating. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1224, 40– 62. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05958.x 21486295 PMC3079823 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Li C.-T. Chen M.-H. Juan C.-H. Huang H.-H. Chen L.-F. Hsieh J.-C.. (2014). Efficacy of prefrontal theta-burst stimulation in refractory depression: a randomized sham-controlled study. Brain 137, 2088– 2098. 10.1093/brain/awu109 24817188 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Li C.-S. R. Ide J. S. Zhang S. Hu S. Chao H. H. Zaborszky L. (2014). Resting state functional connectivity of the basal nucleus of Meynert in humans: in comparison to the ventral striatum and the effects of age. Neuroimage 97, 321– 332. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.019 24736176 PMC4065805 · DOI
  35. Menzies L. Chamberlain S. R. Laird A. R. Thelen S. M. Sahakian B. J. Bullmore E. T. (2008). Integrating evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the orbitofronto-striatal model revisited. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32, 525– 549. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.09.005 18061263 PMC2889493 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Nahas Z. Lomarev M. Roberts D. R. Shastri A. Lorberbaum J. P. Teneback C.. (2001). Unilateral left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) produces intensity-dependent bilateral effects as measured by interleaved BOLD fMRI. Biol. Psychiatry 50, 712– 720. 10.1016/s0006-3223(01)01199-4 11704079 · DOI
  37. Oldfield R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97– 113. 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 5146491 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Phelps E. A. LeDoux J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: from animal models to human behavior. Neuron 48, 175– 187. 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.09.025 16242399 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Robbins T. W. Everitt B. J. (1992). Functions of dopamine in the dorsal and ventral striatum. Semin. Neurosci. 4, 119– 127. 10.1016/1044-5765(92)90010-y · DOI
  40. Robinson J. L. Laird A. R. Glahn D. C. Blangero J. Sanghera M. K. Pessoa L.. (2012). The functional connectivity of the human caudate: an application of meta-analytic connectivity modeling with behavioral filtering. Neuroimage 60, 117– 129. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.010 22197743 PMC3288226 · DOI
  41. Rossi S. Hallett M. Rossini P. M. Pascual-Leone A. Safety of TMS Consensus Group. (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin. Neurophysiol. 120, 2008– 2039. 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016 19833552 PMC3260536 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Rossini P. M. Burke D. Chen R. Cohen L. Daskalakis Z. Di Iorio R.. (2015). Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an IFCN Committee. Clin. Neurophysiol. 126, 1071– 1107. 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.001 25797650 PMC6350257 · DOI
  43. Sesack S. R. Pickel V. M. (1992). Prefrontal cortical efferents in the rat synapse on unlabeled neuronal targets of catecholamine terminals in the nucleus accumbens septi and on dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area. J. Comp. Neurol. 320, 145– 160. 10.1002/cne.903200202 1377716 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Siebner H. R. Lang N. Rizzo V. Nitsche M. A. Paulus W. Lemon R. N.. (2004). Preconditioning of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence for homeostatic plasticity in the human motor cortex. J. Neurosci. 24, 3379– 3385. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5316-03.2004 15056717 PMC6730024 · DOI
  45. Sohn Y. H. Hallett M. (2004). Surround inhibition in human motor system. Exp. Brain Res. 158, 397– 404. 10.1007/s00221-004-1909-y 15146307 · DOI
  46. Strafella A. P. Paus T. Fraraccio M. Dagher A. (2003). Striatal dopamine release induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain 126, 2609– 2615. 10.1093/brain/awg268 12937078 · DOI
  47. Wang Y. Zhu J. Li Q. Li W. Wu N. Zheng Y.. (2013). Altered fronto-striatal and fronto-cerebellar circuits in heroin-dependent individuals: a resting-state fMRI study. PLoS One 8: e58098. 10.1371/journal.pone.0058098 23483978 PMC3590175 · DOI
  48. Wessa M. Houenou J. Paillère-Martinot M.-L. Berthoz S. Artiges E. Leboyer M.. (2007). Fronto-striatal overactivation in euthymic bipolar patients during an emotional go/nogo task. Am. J. Psychiatry 164, 638– 646. 10.1176/appi.ajp.164.4.638 17403978 · DOI
  49. Yan C.-G. Wang X.-D. Zuo X.-N. Zang Y.-F. (2016). DPABI: data processing and analysis for (resting-state) brain imaging. Neuroinformatics 14, 339– 351. 10.1007/s12021-016-9299-4 27075850 · DOI
  50. Zafar N. Paulus W. Sommer M. (2008). Comparative assessment of best conventional with best theta burst repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols on human motor cortex excitability. Clin. Neurophysiol. 119, 1393– 1399. 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.02.006 18400556 · DOI
  51. Zhang S. Hu S. Chao H. H. Li C. S. R. (2016). Resting-state functional connectivity of the locus coeruleus in humans: in comparison with the ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra pars compacta and the effects of age. Cereb. Cortex 26, 3413– 3427. 10.1093/cercor/bhv172 26223261 PMC4961017 · DOI
  52. Zhang S. Ide J. S. Li C. S. R. (2011). Resting-state functional connectivity of the medial superior frontal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 22, 99– 111. 10.1093/cercor/bhr088 21572088 PMC3236794 · DOI
  53. Ziemann U. Paulus W. Nitsche M. A. Pascual-Leone A. Byblow W. D. Berardelli A.. (2008). Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols. Brain Stimul. 1, 164– 182. 10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.006 20633383 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Ziemann U. Siebner H. R. (2015). Inter-subject and inter-session variability of plasticity induction by non-invasive brain stimulation: boon or bane? Brain Stimul. 8, 662– 663. 10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.409 25704341 · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Alkhasli, I., Sakreida, K., Mottaghy, F. M., & Binkofski, F.
Affiliations
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
Corresponding author
Binkofski, Ferdinand
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-06-13
Volume
13
Pages
190-190
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnhum.2019.00190
PMC
PMC6585467
OpenAlex
W2950027816
Cited by
43
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
RWTH Aachen University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
intermittent theta burst stimulation, stimulation intensity, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, putamen, nucleus accumbens, amygdala, resting-state functional connectivity

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