Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on resting-state connectivity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain is organized into networks that reorganize dynamically in response to cognitive demands and exogenous stimuli. In recent years, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has gained increasing use as a noninvasive means to modulate cortical physiology, with effects both proximal to the stimulation site and in distal areas that are intrinsically connected to the proximal target. In light of these network-level neuromodulatory effects, there has been a rapid growth in studies attempting to leverage information about network connectivity to improve neuromodulatory control and intervention outcomes. However, the mechanisms-of-action of rTMS on network-level effects remain poorly understood and is based primarily on heuristics from proximal stimulation findings. To help bridge this gap, the current paper presents a systematic review of 33 rTMS studies with baseline and post-rTMS measures of fMRI resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC). Literature synthesis revealed variability across studies in stimulation parameters, studied populations, and connectivity analysis methodology. Despite this variability, it is observed that active rTMS induces significant changes on RSFC, but the prevalent low-frequency-inhibition/high-frequency-facilitation heuristic endorsed for proximal rTMS effects does not fully describe distal connectivity findings. This review also points towards other important considerations, including that the majority of rTMS-induced changes were found outside the stimulated functional network, suggesting that rTMS effects tend to spread across networks. Future studies may therefore wish to adopt conventions and systematic frameworks, such as the Yeo functional connectivity parcellation atlas adopted here, to better characterize network-level effect that contribute to the efficacy of these rapidly developing noninvasive interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".