4.7 Article

Cerebellar Theta and Beta Noninvasive Stimulation Rhythms Differentially Influence Episodic Memory versus Semantic Prediction

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 40, Issue 38, Pages 7300-7310

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0595-20.2020

Keywords

beta frequency; EEG; episodic memory; language processing; theta frequency; transcranial magnetic stimulation

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-MH106512, F32-MH118718-01]
  2. Northwestern University Department of Radiology
  3. Office of the Provost
  4. Office for Research
  5. Northwestern University Information Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The human cerebellum is thought to interact with distributed brain networks to support cognitive abilities such as episodic memory and semantic prediction. Hippocampal and fronto-temporo-parietal networks that respectively support episodic memory versus semantic prediction have been associated with distinct endogenous oscillatory activity frequency bands: theta (similar to 3-8 Hz) versus beta (similar to 13-30Hz) respectively. We sought to test whether it is possible to toggle cerebellar participation in episodic memory versus semantic prediction by noninvasively stimulating with theta versus beta rhythmic transcranial magnetic stimulation. In human subjects of both sexes, cerebellar theta stimulation improved episodic memory encoding but did not influence neural signals of semantic prediction, whereas beta stimulation of the same cerebellar location increased neural signals of semantic prediction but did not influence episodic memory encoding. This constitutes evidence for double dissociation of cerebellar contributions to semantic prediction versus episodic memory based on stimulation rhythm, supporting the hypothesis that the cerebellum can be biased to support these distinct cognitive abilities at the command of network-specific rhythmic activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available