Continuous and intermittent theta burst stimulation to the visual cortex do not alter GABA and glutamate concentrations measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Theta burst stimulation (TBS), a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), uses repeated high‐frequency bursts to non‐invasively modulate neural processes in the brain. An intermittent TBS (iTBS) protocol is generally considered “excitatory,” while continuous TBS (cTBS) is considered “inhibitory.” However, the majority of work that has led to these effects being associated with the respective protocols has been done in the motor cortex, and it is well established that TMS can have variable effects across the brain. Objectives and method We investigated the effects of iTBS and cTBS to the primary visual cortex (V1) on composite levels of gamma‐aminobutyric acid + co‐edited macromolecules (GABA+) and glutamate + glutamine (Glx) since these are key inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitters, respectively. Participants received a single session of cTBS, iTBS, or sham TBS to V1. GABA+ and Glx were quantified in vivo at the stimulation site using spectral‐edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ( 1 H‐MRS) at 3T. Baseline pre‐TBS GABA+ and Glx levels were compared to immediate post‐TBS and 1 h post‐TBS levels. Results There were no significant changes in GABA+ or Glx following either of the TBS conditions. Visual cortical excitability, measured using phosphene thresholds, remained unchanged following both cTBS and iTBS conditions. There was no relationship between excitability thresholds and GABA+ or Glx levels. However, TBS did alter the relationship between GABA+ and Glx for up to 1 h following stimulation. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that a single session of TBS to the visual cortex can be used without significant effects on the tonic levels of these key neurotransmitters; and add to our understanding that TBS has differential effects at visual, motor, and frontal cortices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".