ArticleeNeuro
The Effects of a TMS Double Perturbation to a Cortical Network.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in magnetic field approaches for non-invasive targeting neuromodulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Optimized Magnetic Stimulation Induced Hypoconnectivity Within the Executive Control Network Yields Cognition Improvements in Alzheimer's Patients.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is often used to understand the function of individual brain regions, but this ignores the fact that TMS may affect network-level rather than nodal-level processes. We examine the effects of a double perturbation to two frontoparietal network nodes, compared with the effects of single lesions to either node. We hypothesized that Bayesian evidence for the absence of effects that build upon one another indicates that a single perturbation is consequential to network-level processes. Twenty-three humans performed pro-saccades (look toward) and anti-saccades (look away) after receiving continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) to right frontal eye fields (FEFs), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or somatosensory cortex (S1; the control region). On a subset of trials, a TMS pulse was applied to right posterior parietal cortex (PPC). FEF, DLPFC, and PPC are important frontoparietal network nodes for generating anti-saccades. Bayesian
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.