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 applied at the left temporoparietal area with a fre

3 rTMS applied at the right temporoparietal area was not s

4 rTMS did not change choices involving only delayed rewar

5 rTMS effects were analyzed with intracranial electroence

6 rTMS has also been used to gain valuable knowledge regar

7 rTMS over left somatosensory but not over left motor cor

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

9 rTMS provoked a significant decrease in seeded functiona

10 rTMS selectively impaired discrimination of facial expre

11 rTMS significantly decreased the number of seizures in t

12 rTMS targeted at the face region impaired task performan

13 rTMS to left OFA had no effect.

14 rTMS to the right PPC disrupted the guidance of attentio

15 rTMS versus sham treatment for AVH yielded a mean weight

16 rTMS was not as effective as ECT, and ECT was substantia

17 rTMS, especially when applied at the left temporoparieta

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

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

20 on the proportion of remitters (14.1% active rTMS and 5.1% sham) (P = .02).

21 ctivity difference was reduced during active rTMS stimulation.

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

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

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

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

26 t in some aspects of cognition in the active rTMS group only.

27 0.01) and at week 4 (p = 0.03) in the active rTMS group only.

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

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

30 Additionally, rTMS lowered accuracy to a greater extent when applied t

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

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

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

34 ately after, as well as 30 and 60 days after rTMS treatment.

35 tation repulsion illusion was weakened after rTMS.

36 cious and acceptable interventions among all rTMS strategies.

37 Furthermore, an rTMS-induced disruption of the hand representation had n

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

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

40 stimulation and the combination of tDCS and rTMS.

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

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

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

44 ence in favor of this hypothesis by applying rTMS to normal participants: ATL stimulation generates a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52 echanisms, only one of which was impacted by rTMS.

53 lectivity gauged by masking was unchanged by rTMS, whereas an otherwise robust orientation repulsion

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

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

56 of optimal frequency versus sham cerebellar rTMS.

57 that has important implications for clinical rTMS.

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

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

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

61 ight ahead at baseline or after motor cortex rTMS.

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

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

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

65 We delivered rTMS to the left prefrontal cortex at 120% motor thresho

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

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

68 DLPFC rTMS reduced punishment for wrongful acts without affect

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

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

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

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

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

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

75 ntal cortex, and unresponsive to dorsomedial rTMS.

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

77 In a second experiment, rTMS to rOFA replicated the face-part impairment but did

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

79 r = 0.009) swallow times, not seen following rTMS to the contralateral cortex or after sham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

87 High-frequency rTMS to lpIPL decreased functional correlations between

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

89 95% CI, 0.46-1.08; P<.001) and low-frequency rTMS applied over other frontal regions (SMD, 0.50; 95%

90 t five consecutive sessions of low-frequency rTMS, either sham or active (1Hz, 1,200 pulses), focally

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 sed to unilaterally disrupt each hemisphere, rTMS to pharyngeal motor cortex with the stronger respon

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

96 However, rTMS-induced neural plasticity remains insufficiently un

97 r 60 min after differing intensities of 1 Hz rTMS (n = 9, 6 male, 3 female, mean age 34 +/- 3 years)

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

99 Only high intensity 1 Hz rTMS consistently suppressed pharyngeal motor cortex imm

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

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

102 and homeostatic plasticity in the TDCS/1 Hz rTMS model.

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

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

105 ular vision, before and after 15 min of 1 Hz rTMS.

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

107 10 Hz rTMS spanned the 3-s delay period of a spatial delayed-r

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

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

112 l TC neurons respond in the same way to 5 Hz rTMS as those that control CTS neurons.

113 examined before and after 600 pulses of 5 Hz rTMS at 90% resting motor threshold.

114 icated in a second experiment, in which 5 Hz rTMS at the parietal site was applied during the retenti

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

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

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

118 such a characterization by showing that 5 Hz rTMS over primary somatosensory cortex (SI) induces a re

119 These results suggest that 5 Hz rTMS over right DLPFC exerts remote effects on the activ

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

121 w statistical power or variety in individual rTMS protocols.

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

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

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

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

126 or across sessions is associated with larger rTMS effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

139 " 1 Hz rTMS and then applied focal "on-line" rTMS to SMG while human subjects performed a spatially p

140 feature differences, which is affected by LO rTMS.

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

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

143 Novel rTMS interventions (accelerated, synchronized, and deep

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

145 The application of rTMS to areas V5/MT and V3A induced a subjective slowing

146 nation were not observed for applications of rTMS to V3A or V5/MT+.

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

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

149 ndomly assigned to either a 15-day course of rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (N=24) o

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

157 l for any regionally non-specific effects of rTMS.

158 nterindividual differences in the effects of rTMS.

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

160 lled trial that demonstrates the efficacy of rTMS among geriatric patients with VD.

161 controlled trial to test the equivalence of rTMS with ECT.

162 though seemingly paradoxical, the finding of rTMS-induced improvement in task performance has a prece

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

164 Although studies have shown an influence of rTMS on single cortical regions and on simple behavioral

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

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

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

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

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

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

171 Daily left prefrontal rTMS as monotherapy produced statistically significant a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

184 with hallucination improvement following rW rTMS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

192 randomly assigned to receive active or sham rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

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

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

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

196 based seizure profiles when compared to sham rTMS treatment.

197 of seizures in the active compared with sham rTMS group (p < 0.0001), and this effect lasted for at l

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

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

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

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

202 ived straight ahead induced by somatosensory rTMS, without affecting the perceived straight ahead at

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

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

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

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

207 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

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

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

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

211 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) conditioning to the right and left DLPFC on reacti

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

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

214 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been reported to be as effective as electrocon

215 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been studied as a potential treatment for depr

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

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

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

219 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) increased choices of immediate rewards over larger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

227 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) might also be effective among patients with VD.

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

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

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

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

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

233 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains unknown.

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

235 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted at the right OFA (rOFA) disrupted accurat

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

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

238 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to assess the necessity for the short-term retenti

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

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

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

242 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to SS- and SNGA-identified regions throughout the

243 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to temporarily disrupt the lip representation in t

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

245 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was then used to disrupt the normal functioning of

246 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) were applied to pharyngeal motor cortex in order t

247 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) while participants discriminated facial expression

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

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

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

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

252 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which can significantly attenuate neuronal spikin

253 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

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

255 epetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

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

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

258 In the second part of the study, rTMS applied to left VLPFC in healthy subjects slowed re

259 within the rSC was demonstrated by targeting rTMS at the face and finger regions while participants p

260 Thus, our data demonstrate that rTMS can temporarily induce behaviorally relevant reorga

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

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

263 Results indicated that rTMS targeting SS analysis-identified regions of left pe

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

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

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

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

268 The rTMS significantly improved 3-back accuracy for targets

269 During the rTMS application, participants were required to perform

270 ion in the ECT group and four (16.7%) in the rTMS group.

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

272 ample task was used in which repetitive TMS (rTMS) at 1, 5, or 20 Hz was applied to either left dorso

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

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

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

276 s, suppression of pharyngeal motor cortex to rTMS is intensity and frequency dependent, which when ap

277 Response rates to rTMS were negatively correlated with age and positively

278 region impaired task performance relative to rTMS targeted at the finger region.

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

280 es were associated with a poorer response to rTMS.

281 extent and the direction of the response to rTMS.

282 interindividual differences in responses to rTMS have been reported.

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

284 Possible factors underlying rTMS-induced behavioral facilitation are considered.

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

286 Using rTMS to suppress neural responses evoked by stimuli fall

287 s review, we summarize insights gained using rTMS on the physiological and neural mechanisms of human

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

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

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

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

292 a significant decrease in reaction time when rTMS was applied to SPL.

293 rimotor cortex impaired performance, whereas rTMS targeting the SNGA-identified region of left caudal

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

295 of attention toward salient stimuli, whereas rTMS to the left PPC affected the ability to bias select

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

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

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

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

300 tation protocol and (2) preconditioning with rTMS.