Cerebellar Theta Burst Stimulation Impairs Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Working memory refers to the process of temporarily storing and manipulating information. The role of the cerebellum in working memory is thought to be achieved through its connections with the prefrontal cortex. Previous studies showed that theta burst stimulation (TBS), a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, of the cerebellum changes its functional connectivity with the prefrontal cortex. Specifically, excitatory intermittent TBS (iTBS) increases, whereas inhibitory continuous TBS (cTBS) decreases this functional connectivity. We hypothesized that iTBS on the cerebellum will improve working memory, whereas cTBS will disrupt it. Methods Sixteen healthy participants (10 women) participated in this study. Bilateral cerebellar stimulation was applied with a figure-of-eight coil at 3 cm lateral and 1 cm below the inion. The participants received iTBS, cTBS, and sham iTBS in three separate sessions in random order. Within 30 minutes after TBS, the participants performed four working memory tasks: letter 1-Back and 2-Back, digit span forward, and digit span backward. Results Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of the type of stimulation (iTBS/cTBS/Sham) on performance in the digit span backward task (p = 0.02). The planned comparison showed that the cTBS condition had significantly lower scores than the sham condition (p = 0.01). iTBS and cTBS did not affect performance in the 1- and 2-Back and the digit span forward tasks compared to sham stimulation. Conclusion The findings support the hypothesis that the cerebellum is involved in working memory, and this contribution may be disrupted by cTBS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".