ライフサイエンスコーパス: rTMS

1 rTMS and tDCS can be used to modulate stroke-induced cha

2 rTMS and tDCS were well tolerated.

3 rTMS applied at the left temporoparietal area with a fre

4 rTMS applied at the right temporoparietal area was not s

5 rTMS effects were analyzed with intracranial electroence

6 rTMS over the right, but not the left, S1 selectively in

7 rTMS provoked a significant decrease in seeded functiona

8 rTMS temporarily induced stronger allegiance within and

9 rTMS versus sham treatment for AVH yielded a mean weight

10 rTMS, especially when applied at the left temporoparieta

11 ponses with active (n = 13) or sham (n = 12) rTMS treatment course.

12 Priming with 1 and 25Hz rTMS can augment the benefits of treadmill training and

13 The 1 and 25Hz rTMS groups produced a greater improvement in fastest wa

14 Only the 1 and 25Hz rTMS groups sustained the improvements in TUG, and had a

15 Naloxone pretreatment largely abolished rTMS-induced analgesia, as well as rTMS-induced attenuat

16 ctivity difference was reduced during active rTMS stimulation.

17 n overall medium effect size favoring active rTMS over sham rTMS in the reduction of motor symptoms (

18 These findings indicated active rTMS combined with quetiapine was not superior to quetia

19 se findings suggest that unlike sham, active rTMS over the IPL modulates the oscillatory activity of

20 provement in positive symptoms in the active rTMS group (p = .047, effect size = .30), limited to day

21 es) this difference is abolished when active rTMS is delivered.

22 remission were 4.2 times greater with active rTMS than with sham (95% confidence interval, 1.32-13.24

23 pants received cue exposure before and after rTMS and rated their craving after each block of cue pre

24 working memory n-back task before and after rTMS magnetic resonance image targeted bilaterally seque

25 aging, and clinical changes before and after rTMS.

26 in the allocation of spatial attention after rTMS over the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS), but the

27 onse times returned to baseline 1-hour after rTMS.

28 attentional tracking task immediately after rTMS, and the inhibition of PIVC during attentive tracki

29 cious and acceptable interventions among all rTMS strategies.

30 in patients, these findings may represent an rTMS-induced change in network efficiency in patients wi

31 sociated with increasing task difficulty and rTMS benefits on task performance.

32 e other 2 combinations of rTMS frequency and rTMS site (ie, high-frequency rTMS at other frontal regi

33 d any rTMS intervention with sham or another rTMS intervention.

34 Randomized clinical trials that compared any rTMS intervention with sham or another rTMS intervention

35 nts improved whereas others did not show any rTMS effect (compared with control stimulation).

36 abolished rTMS-induced analgesia, as well as rTMS-induced attenuation of BOLD signal response to pain

37 sham stimulation; 2) for high-salience AVHs, rTMS to rW after the first five sessions yielded signifi

38 stimulation, whereas for low salience AVHs, rTMS to W produced this finding.

39 preconditioning the hand motor cortex before rTMS could enhance stimulation outcomes through metaplas

40 ted that priming low-frequency and bilateral rTMS might be the most efficacious and acceptable interv

41 low-frequency, high-frequency, and bilateral rTMS.

42 odalities, favoring to some extent bilateral rTMS and priming low-frequency rTMS.

43 These pilot data suggest that bilateral rTMS might be a novel, efficacious, and safe treatment f

44 Rebalancing cortical excitability by rTMS appears critical for plasticity induction.

45 Cerebellar rTMS was able to reverse the disruptive effects of a 'vi

46 Compared to sham, active cerebellar rTMS, whether administered ipsi-lesionally (P = 0.011) o

47 s provide evidence for developing cerebellar rTMS into a treatment for post-stroke dysphagia.

48 Only 10 Hz cerebellar rTMS increased cortico-pharyngeal MEP amplitudes (mean b

49 ed to receive 250 pulses of 10 Hz cerebellar rTMS to the ipsi-lesional side, contra-lesional side or

50 These optimised parameters of cerebellar rTMS can produce sustained increases in corticobulbar ex

51 esional, contra-lesional and sham cerebellar rTMS to reverse the effects of a 'virtual-lesion' in hea

52 of optimal frequency versus sham cerebellar rTMS.

53 that has important implications for clinical rTMS.

54 als between preconditioning and conditioning rTMS had stronger stimulation effects in both swallowing

55 In contrast, rTMS applied over the left PPC triggers a weaker or null

56 In contrast, rTMS did not alter ratings of touch pleasantness.

57 se protocols appear superior to conventional rTMS and may be relevant to future clinical application

58 Conversely, rTMS over the left IPS resulted in strikingly opposed in

59 dergoing left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex rTMS and to determine associated baseline clinical chara

60 Implications for improving the cortical rTMS target for depression are discussed.

61 In normal human subjects, 5 d rTMS to motor cortex decreased resting motor threshold,

62 entions (accelerated, synchronized, and deep rTMS) were not more effective than sham.

63 Parallel studies of semantic dementia, rTMS in normal participants, and neuroimaging indicate t

64 cacy and acceptability between the different rTMS modalities, favoring to some extent bilateral rTMS

65 DLPFC rTMS reduced punishment for wrongful acts without affect

66 preliminary results suggest that left DLPFC rTMS drives top-down opioidergic analgesia.

67 immediately before sham and real left DLPFC rTMS on the same experimental visit.

68 nderlies the analgesic effects of left DLPFC rTMS, and to examine how the function of this circuit, i

69 Finally, we show that DLPFC rTMS affects punishment decision making by altering the

70 ctory MDD underwent a 4-week course of dmPFC-rTMS.

71 donic function and responsive to dorsomedial rTMS and another with disrupted hedonic function, abnorm

72 ntal cortex, and unresponsive to dorsomedial rTMS.

73 eral cognition (-0.79, -2.06 to 0.48) during rTMS or tDCS.

74 d field is focused on a target region during rTMS, adjacent areas also receive stimulation at a lower

75 capacity for neuroplastic change and enhance rTMS outcomes.

76 Additional studies are needed to explore rTMS as an aid to smoking cessation.

77 trated significantly greater improvement for rTMS compared with sham stimulation; 2) for high-salienc

78 s implicates a potentially relevant role for rTMS in cognitive rehabilitation in MS.

79 One session of high-frequency rTMS (10 Hz) of the left DLPFC significantly reduced sub

80 omized to receive either real high-frequency rTMS (10 Hz, 100% resting motor threshold, 5-sec on, 10-

81 treatment components included high-frequency rTMS (HFrTMS) and low-frequency rTMS, anodal tDCS (atDCS

82 frequency and rTMS site (ie, high-frequency rTMS at other frontal regions: SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, -0.02

83 We hypothesized that a single high-frequency rTMS session over the left dorsolateral prefrontal corte

84 e effect sizes estimated from high-frequency rTMS targeting the primary motor cortex (SMD, 0.77; 95%

85 High-frequency rTMS to lpIPL decreased functional correlations between

86 In contrast, low frequency rTMS to lpIPL did not alter connectivity between cortica

87 These data indicate that low frequency rTMS to the right PPC speeds up aspects of early visual

88 95% CI, 0.46-1.08; P<.001) and low-frequency rTMS applied over other frontal regions (SMD, 0.50; 95%

89 Low-frequency rTMS to the right PPC did not significantly change measu

90 gh-frequency rTMS (HFrTMS) and low-frequency rTMS, anodal tDCS (atDCS) and cathodal tDCS (ctDCS), CT,

91 ent bilateral rTMS and priming low-frequency rTMS.

92 Furthermore, rTMS induced a frequency-specific delay of task-related

93 ontrolled experiment, neuronavigation-guided rTMS was applied to the right dorsolateral prefrontal co

94 One-hertz rTMS per our site-optimization protocol produced some cl

95 However, rTMS-induced neural plasticity remains insufficiently un

96 0.007) and reduced after preconditioned 1 Hz rTMS (F(1,13) = 14.108, P = 0.009) compared to sham.

97 ansiently disrupted PMd with "off-line" 1 Hz rTMS and then applied focal "on-line" rTMS to SMG while

98 hat 5 Hz rTMS consistently outperformed 1 Hz rTMS in seizure suppression.

99 17) reversing the inhibitory effects of 1 Hz rTMS in the pre-conditioned hemisphere (F1,14 = 10.1, P

100 randomised to active or sham tDCS after 1 Hz rTMS on separate days and data were compared using repea

101 min) were applied contralaterally after 1 Hz rTMS pre-conditioning to the strongest pharyngeal projec

102 By comparison, 1 Hz rTMS preconditioned with 5 Hz rTMS with 90 min inter-rTM

103 Participants received 10 min of 1 Hz rTMS to the pharyngeal motor cortex which elicited the l

104 ound that 5 Hz rTMS preconditioned with 1 Hz rTMS with 30 min inter-rTMS interval induced the greates

105 tion, the expected inhibitory effect of 1-Hz rTMS on amplitude was not observed in subjects with the

106 In contrast, data from 10 Hz rTMS suggested facilitative characteristics.

107 subjects before and after a session of 10 Hz rTMS to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC)

108 y trial (N=388) comparing conventional 10-Hz rTMS and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) rTM

109 t phase, 76 patients were treated with 10-Hz rTMS applied 5 days per week for 3 weeks to the left dor

110 This study evaluated the efficacy of 10-Hz rTMS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

111 Treatment was either conventional 10-Hz rTMS or iTBS rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal

112 Application of active 10-Hz rTMS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was well

113 uracy was improved after preconditioned 5 Hz rTMS (F(1,13) = 10.109, P = 0.007) and reduced after pre

114 Our results showed that 5 Hz rTMS consistently outperformed 1 Hz rTMS in seizure supp

115 Here we show that daily 5 Hz rTMS for 5 d improves BDNF-TrkB signaling in rats by inc

116 olunteers to investigate the effects of 5 Hz rTMS on prefrontal-hippocampal coupling during working m

117 We found that 5 Hz rTMS preconditioned with 1 Hz rTMS with 30 min inter-rTM

118 Ps, the optimal preconditioned 1 Hz and 5 Hz rTMS protocols were then applied as interventions while

119 mparison, 1 Hz rTMS preconditioned with 5 Hz rTMS with 90 min inter-rTMS interval was most optimal fo

120 lt from a multivisit intervention using 5 Hz rTMS.

121 s with the SNP that encoded Met66 after 5-Hz rTMS (F(3),(6)(0) = 4.9; P = .04).

122 eight different preconditioned (1 and 5 Hz) rTMS interventions with varying inter-rTMS intervals.

123 w statistical power or variety in individual rTMS protocols.

124 We also examined the effects of inhibitory rTMS over the occipital cortex and found that the visual

125 Nineteen subjects also received inhibitory rTMS over right hemisphere S1 and the vertex (control).

126 e the distributed nature by which inhibitory rTMS perturbs network communities and is preliminary evi

127 Here, we examined low-intensity rTMS (LI-rTMS)-induced changes on a model neural network

128 conditioned with 1 Hz rTMS with 30 min inter-rTMS interval induced the greatest increase on pharyngea

129 conditioned with 5 Hz rTMS with 90 min inter-rTMS interval was most optimal for suppressing pharyngea

130 5 Hz) rTMS interventions with varying inter-rTMS intervals.

131 t was either conventional 10-Hz rTMS or iTBS rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 5 da

132 intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) rTMS.

133 rwent 4 weeks of sham followed by open-label rTMS for nonresponders (n = 12).

134 depression underwent conventional open-label rTMS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

135 or across sessions is associated with larger rTMS effects.

136 In the corticotectal efferents, LI-rTMS improved topography of the most abnormal TZs in eph

137 tigate a possible molecular mechanism for LI-rTMS-induced structural plasticity, we measured brain de

138 the afferent geniculocortical projection, LI-rTMS decreased the abnormally high dispersion of retrogr

139 Here, we examined low-intensity rTMS (LI-rTMS)-induced changes on a model neural network using th

140 Our results show that LI-rTMS upregulates BDNF, promoting a plastic environment c

141 Mice were treated with LI-rTMS or sham (handling control) daily for 14 d, then flu

142 We infer that off-line rTMS caused an additional dysfunction of PMd, which incr

143 idly precued trials, but only after off-line rTMS of PMd.

144 regardless of the type of preceding off-line rTMS.

145 On-line rTMS of SMG additionally increased RTs for correct respo

146 Effective on-line rTMS of SMG but not sham rTMS of SMG increased errors wh

147 zed SMG to the disruptive effects of on-line rTMS.

148 " 1 Hz rTMS and then applied focal "on-line" rTMS to SMG while human subjects performed a spatially p

149 feature differences, which is affected by LO rTMS.

150 83) were randomly allocated to double-masked rTMS versus sham stimulation, with blocks of five sessio

151 Moreover, rTMS over vIPS during stay cues caused a delay of delta

152 Novel rTMS interventions (accelerated, synchronized, and deep

153 Current evidence cannot support novel rTMS interventions as a treatment for MDD.

154 es obtained from the other 2 combinations of rTMS frequency and rTMS site (ie, high-frequency rTMS at

155 Combinations of rTMS site and frequency as well as the number of rTMS pu

156 es provided evidence for a nominal effect of rTMS and poor test-retest reliability.

157 ver, results evaluating the effectiveness of rTMS in PD are mixed, mostly owing to low statistical po

158 e research directly comparing the effects of rTMS at different targets, guided by neuroimaging and cl

159 ext step should be to explore the effects of rTMS in medication-free individuals, for example, during

160 brain activation suggest that the effects of rTMS may depend on both interhemispheric and intrahemisp

161 investigated the preconditioning effects of rTMS on swallowing neurophysiology and behaviour.

162 e objectives were to evaluate the effects of rTMS on working memory performance in schizophrenia pati

163 kinase B (TrkB) contribute to the effects of rTMS, their precise role and underlying mechanism remain

164 nterindividual differences in the effects of rTMS.

165 Neuroimaging data reveal that the effects of rTMS/tDCS on the functional architecture of the motor sy

166 Two different frequencies of rTMS to the same default network node (the left posterio

167 The impact of rTMS, however, was apparent distal from the stimulation

168 acceptability of the different modalities of rTMS used for MDD by performing a network meta-analysis,

169 number of rTMS pulses are key modulators of rTMS effects.

170 site and frequency as well as the number of rTMS pulses are key modulators of rTMS effects.

171 hyrin is detected in CA1 stratum radiatum of rTMS-treated anaesthetized mice.

172 PD were randomized to receive 12 sessions of rTMS (25Hz, 1Hz, or sham) followed by treadmill training

173 o studies have characterized trajectories of rTMS response.

174 g memory benefit associated with 5 Hz online rTMS.

175 ntegrity is a reliable marker for optimizing rTMS target selection.

176 ttentive tracking compared with sham rTMS or rTMS over PPC.

177 No stimulation or rTMS on a nonrelevant brain region did not have the same

178 The results for other rTMS paradigms are disappointing thus far.

179 Ps) were measured before and for 60 min post-rTMS.

180 We found that preconditioned rTMS with specific time intervals between preconditionin

181 pharyngeal motor cortex using preconditioned rTMS.

182 trials with TMS addressed whether prefrontal rTMS has efficacy and were conducted in carefully select

183 Consistent with previous findings, real rTMS significantly reduced hot allodynia pain ratings.

184 g at baseline, post-sham rTMS, and post-real rTMS.

185 cal inhibition in both groups receiving real rTMS.

186 ask accuracy (N2 and N3) improved after real-rTMS (and not after sham-rTMS) compared with baseline (p

187 hanges in functional connectivity after real-rTMS in patients, these findings may represent an rTMS-i

188 ulate gyrus increased in patients after real-rTMS when compared with sham stimulation.

189 DLPFC, N2>N0), which disappeared after real-rTMS.

190 line relative to HCs) disappeared after real-rTMS.

191 went 3 experimental sessions (baseline, real-rTMS, sham-rTMS), all including an N-back task (3 task l

192 Prior to imaging, real-rTMS (10 Hz) was applied to the right DLPFC.

193 eral other psychoactive treatments, repeated rTMS sessions can exert long-lasting effects on neuronal

194 We examined how the resulting rTMS modulation differed in relation to the self-reporte

195 with hallucination improvement following rW rTMS.

196 ctional connectivity between an individual's rTMS cortical target and the subgenual cingulate predict

197 After S1 rTMS, but not after vertex rTMS, sensory discrimination

198 After 15 sessions, rTMS produced significant improvements relative to sham

199 Sham rTMS used a similar coil with a metal insert blocking th

200 sorimotor reactivity between active and sham rTMS during static hand or hand movement observation.

201 We found that active, but not sham rTMS elicited (1) an increase in dlPFC global connectivi

202 e to active (r = -.52, p < .05) but not sham rTMS in our secondary cohort.

203 Effective on-line rTMS of SMG but not sham rTMS of SMG increased errors when subjects had to reprog

204 tiated startle following active but not sham rTMS.

205 randomized to receive either active or sham rTMS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC)

206 m effect size favoring active rTMS over sham rTMS in the reduction of motor symptoms (P<.001).

207 aging (fMRI) scanning at baseline, post-sham rTMS, and post-real rTMS.

208 ent), and 81 patients were subjected to sham rTMS applied similarly.

209 based seizure profiles when compared to sham rTMS treatment.

210 ated but was not superior compared with sham rTMS in improving negative symptoms; this is in contrast

211 during attentive tracking compared with sham rTMS or rTMS over PPC.

212 cking was less pronounced compared with sham rTMS.

213 n of the left DLFPC with real, but not sham, rTMS reduced craving significantly from baseline (64.1+/

214 improved after real-rTMS (and not after sham-rTMS) compared with baseline (p=0.029 and p=0.015, respe

215 rimental sessions (baseline, real-rTMS, sham-rTMS), all including an N-back task (3 task loads: N1, N

216 Specifically, rTMS over vIPS or mSPL during maintenance (stay cues) or

217 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and fMRI to determine the specific role of DLPFC f

218 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and functional connectivity MRI (fcMRI) to modulat

219 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and hypothesized that the modulatory influence of

220 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (

221 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied during an individually calibrated working

222 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied over the right posterior parietal cortex (

223 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the inferior parietal lobule.

224 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as an inhibitory noninvasive brain stimulation pro

225 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can alter neuronal activity within the brain with

226 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can be used as a treatment for dysphagia, its effi

227 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can noninvasively stimulate the brain and transien

228 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of auditory verbal hallucination

229 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of negative symptoms and call fo

230 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have after-effects on excitability of motor areas

231 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have been investigated as treatment of major depre

232 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in bipolar II depressed patients remain unclear.

233 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in swallowing rehabilitation, yet its outcomes var

234 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) induces neuronal long-term potentiation or depress

235 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) investigation, we tested the hypothesis that abstr

236 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a commonly- used treatment for major depressive

237 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that

238 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that ha

239 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective treatment for refractory major dep

240 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an increasingly popular set of methods with pro

241 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is increasingly used as a treatment for neurologic

242 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is used as a therapeutic tool in neurology and psy

243 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of Brodmann Area (BA) nine of the left dorsolatera

244 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC

245 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the right supramarginal gyrus (rSMG) in humans

246 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on participants' peak of activation within the lef

247 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

248 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over right lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), a regi

249 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains unknown.

250 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) strategy, we first transiently disrupted PMd with

251 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex h

252 Hs via 1-Hz repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting a site in each region ("W" and "rW") was

253 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC).

254 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to examine the role of S1 in processing touch inte

255 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to infer the functional organization supporting le

256 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in 47 unipola

257 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the right PPC or to the scalp vertex.

258 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a safe non-invasive brain stimulation technique,

259 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and can be studied in healthy volunteers in the a

260 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), induces changes in cortical excitability that las

261 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), we have recently shown a functional anatomical di

262 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

263 and 5 Hz) transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

264 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

265 Depending on the parameters of stimulation, rTMS can also facilitate learning processes, presumably

266 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; rTMS) and unilateral stroke, where disruption of the str

267 These results disclose that rTMS induces coordinated Ca(2+)-dependent structural and

268 We found that rTMS over LPF reduces inhibition associated with competi

269 We report that rTMS of PFC after memory reactivation strengthened verba

270 Here we show that rTMS applied over the frontal cortex of awaken mice indu

271 These findings suggest that rTMS to cortex facilitates BDNF-TrkB-NMDAR functioning i

272 The pooled evidence suggests that rTMS improves motor symptoms for patients with PD.

273 The rTMS significantly improved 3-back accuracy for targets

274 To capture the rTMS-driven changes in connectivity and causal excitabil

275 , positively correlated with the size of the rTMS effect but negatively correlated with bias (the bas

276 additional attentional task showed that this rTMS on the parietal site hindered participants' ability

277 ceive one of five cerebellar repetitive TMS (rTMS) interventions (Sham, 1 Hz, 5 Hz, 10 Hz and 20 Hz)

278 ion (TMS) protocol combining repetitive TMS (rTMS) over PMd or LPF and a single pulse TMS (sTMS) over

279 Repetitive TMS (rTMS) pulse frequency is recognized as one of the most i

280 xiety expression using 10 Hz repetitive TMS (rTMS).

281 ight into which individuals might respond to rTMS treatment and the mechanisms through which these tr

282 e trajectories with differential response to rTMS raise the possibility of developing individualized

283 extent and the direction of the response to rTMS.

284 atients with AD may have better responses to rTMS and tDCS than MCI.

285 interindividual differences in responses to rTMS have been reported.

286 sion shows distinct response trajectories to rTMS, which are associated with baseline clinical charac

287 Taken together, rTMS induced lasting connectivity and excitability chang

288 More broadly, the finding that two rTMS stimulation regimens to the same default network no

289 establishment of improved guidelines to use rTMS in non-medical settings.

290 The current study used rTMS and fMRI during a working memory task to test this

291 When used, rTMS retreatment was generally effective.

292 Here, using rTMS interference in conjunction with EEG recordings of

293 s performed to assess the effects of various rTMS paradigms.

294 After S1 rTMS, but not after vertex rTMS, sensory discrimination was reduced and subjects wi

295 timulation (n = 13), and underwent four-week rTMS with quetiapine concomitantly.

296 ociated with competition resolution, whereas rTMS over PMd decreases inhibition associated with respo

297 schizophrenia patients and evaluate whether rTMS normalizes performance to healthy subject levels.

298 New data from longitudinal studies in which rTMS of the lesioned or contralesional motor cortex was

299 changes in corticospinal excitability, while rTMS was used to produce transient disruption of PMd or

300 In particular, while rTMS interference over vIPS impaired target discriminati