Continuous and intermittent theta burst stimulation of primary visual cortex do not modulate resting state functional connectivity: A sham‐controlled multi‐echo fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a type of rTMS protocol which has the advantage of a shorter delivery time over traditional rTMS. When applied to motor cortex, intermittent TBS (iTBS) has been shown to yield excitatory aftereffects, whereas continuous TBS (cTBS) may lead to inhibitory aftereffects, both lasting from minutes to hours. The majority of TBS research has targeted motor, frontal, and parietal regions, and to date very few studies have examined its efficacy at visual areas. We designed a sham-controlled study to investigate the immediate poststimulation and short-term (1 h post-stimulation) effects of iTBS and cTBS to V1. METHODS: Using multiecho functional magnetic resonance imaging, we measured the direct and indirect effects of TBS by comparing resting state functional connectivity (FC) before and after stimulation in whole brain networks, and seeds from V1 (stimulation site) and neighboring occipital and parietal visual networks. In addition, we also measured pre- and post-TBS phosphene thresholds (PTs) to examine the modulatory effects of TBS on cortical excitability. RESULTS: We found no changes in FC for iTBS, cTBS or sham stimulation conditions from baseline to poststimulation timepoints. Additionally, cTBS and iTBS had no effect on visual cortical excitability. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that unlike our previous low frequency rTMS to V1 study, which resulted in widespread FC changes up to at least 1 h after stimulation, TBS to V1 does not affect FC. Contrary to the studies showing comparable TBS and rTMS aftereffects in motor and frontal regions, our findings suggest that a single session of cTBS or iTBS to V1 at 80% PT using a standard protocol of 600 pulses may not be effective in targeting FC, especially in clinical settings where therapy for pathological networks is the goal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".