Testing a Neurobiological Model of Depersonalization Disorder Using Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depersonalization disorder (DPD) includes changes in subjective experiencing of self, encompassing emotional numbing. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has pointed to ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) inhibition of insula as a neurocognitive correlate of the disorder. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that inhibition to right VLPFC using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) would lead to increased arousal and reduced symptoms. METHODS: Patients with medication-resistant DSM-IV DPD (N = 17) and controls (N = 20) were randomized to receive one session of right-sided rTMS to VLPFC or temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). 1 Hz rTMS was guided using neuronavigation and delivered for 15 min. Co-primary outcomes were: (a) maximum skin conductance capacity, and (b) reduction in depersonalization symptoms (Cambridge Depersonalisation Scale (CDS) [state version]). Secondary outcomes included spontaneous fluctuations (SFs) and event-related skin conductance responses. RESULTS: In patients with DPD, rTMS to VLPFC led to increased electrodermal capacity, namely maximum skin conductance deflections. Patients but not controls also showed increased SFs post rTMS. Patients who had either VLPFC or TPJ rTMS showed a similar significant reduction in symptoms. Event-related electrodermal activity did not change. CONCLUSIONS: A single session of right-sided rTMS to VLPFC (but not TPJ) significantly increased physiological arousal capacity supporting our model regarding the relevance of increased VLPFC activity to emotional numbing in DPD. rTMS to both sites led to reduced depersonalization scores but since this was independent of physiological arousal, this may be a non-specific effect. TMS is a potential therapeutic option for DPD; modulation of VLPFC, if replicated, is a plausible mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".