ArticlePloS one2024
Lessons learned from an fMRI-guided rTMS study on performance in a numerical Stroop task.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Stroop task is a well-established tool to investigate the influence of competing visual categories on decision making. Neuroimaging as well as rTMS studies have demonstrated the involvement of parietal structures, particularly the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), in this task. Given its reliability, the numerical Stroop task was used to compare the effects of different TMS targeting approaches by Sack and colleagues (Sack AT 2009), who elegantly demonstrated the superiority of individualized fMRI targeting. We performed the present study to test whether fMRI-guided rTMS effects on numerical Stroop task performance could still be observed while using more advanced techniques that have emerged in the last decade (e.g., electrical sham, robotic coil holder system, etc.). To do so we used a traditional reaction time analysis and we performed, post-hoc, a more advanced comprehensive drift diffusion modeling approach. Fifteen participants performed the numerical Stroop task while active or sham 10 Hz rTMS was applied over the region of the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) showing the strongest functional activation in the Incongruent > Congruent contrast. This target was determined based on individualized fMRI data collected during a separate session. Contrary to our assumption, the classical reaction time analysis did not show any superiority of active rTMS over sham, probably due to confounds such as potential cumulative rTMS effects, and the effect of practice. However, the modeling approach revealed a robust effect of rTMS on the drift rate variable, suggesting differential processing of congruent and incongruent properties in perceptual decision-making, and more generally, illustrating that more advanced computational analysis of performance can elucidate the effects of rTMS on the brain where simpler methods may not.
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.