ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2026
Temporal Pattern-Dependent Cerebellar Involvement in Conflict Processing: An Online Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe cerebellum is increasingly recognized as a key contributor to cognitive control through interactions with distributed cerebello-cortical networks. Although online transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has demonstrated a causal role for the cerebellum in executive functions, it remains unknown whether conflict processing depends on brief, discrete cerebellar computations or on sustained processing across extended temporal windows.
objectiveTo investigate whether temporally extended cerebellar stimulation (triple pulses at 20 Hz) produces greater disruption of conflict processing than single-pulse when applied online during the Eriksen flanker task.
methodsForty-two healthy participants performed the Eriksen flanker task while receiving online TMS over the cerebellum and vertex control site. Three Pulse Patterns were tested: triple-pulse (20 Hz), single-pulse, and no-TMS baseline. Single pulses were delivered at 150 ms post-stimulus; triple pulses were delivered at 20 Hz starting at the same latency. Reaction times (RT) and interference scores were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVAs and paired-samples t-tests. A difference-in-differences approach quantified the incremental effect of triple-pulse over single-pulse at each site.
resultsThe flanker task induced response conflict, with incongruent trials significantly slower than congruent trials. Cerebellar triple-pulse stimulation significantly increased RTs compared to cerebellar no-TMS, whereas cerebellar single-pulse showed smaller effects. Vertex stimulation produced no significant effects. Interference scores showed an incremental pattern for cerebellar stimulation while vertex interference scores remained stable.
conclusionTemporally extended cerebellar stimulation was associated with greater disruption of conflict processing than single-pulse stimulation in planned contrasts, a pattern consistent with the possibility that cerebellar contributions to cognitive control extend across a temporal window rather than being confined to a single discrete moment. Because the triple-pulse and single-pulse conditions differed in total pulse number, stimulation dose, and onset latency, this behavioral finding should be interpreted as consistent with, rather than proof of, sustained cerebellar processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42836941What 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.