4.7 Article

Sham-derived effects and the minimal reliability of theta burst stimulation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98751-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. MIT-Harvard Broad institute [6600024-5500000895]
  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) via the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Award 2017
  3. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) [HR001117S0030]
  4. National Institutes of Health [P01 AG031720-06A1, R01 MH117063-01, R01 AG06098101, R24AG06142, P01 AG031720, R01 MH115949, R01AG060987]
  5. ADDF [ADDF-FTD GA201902-2017902]
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. Barcelona Brain Health Initiative - La Caixa
  8. Football Players Health Study (FPHS) at Harvard University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the effects of continuous TBS and intermittent TBS protocols on corticospinal excitability were compared over time, with results showing varying effects on motor evoked potentials. However, these effects were generally diminished in repeat visits. The findings challenge the efficacy and reliability of TBS protocols, highlighting the need to consider sham effects when evaluating TBS outcomes.
Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) is a patterned form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) that has been used to induce long-term modulation (plasticity) of corticospinal excitability in a drastically shorter duration protocol than conventional rTMS protocols. In this study we tested the reliability of the effects of two well defined TBS protocols, continuous TBS (cTBS) and intermittent TBS (iTBS), especially in relation to sham TBS, within and across the same 24 participants. All TBS protocols were repeated after approximately 1 month to assess the magnitude and reliability of the modulatory effects of each TBS protocol. Baseline and post-TBS changes in motor evoked potentials (MEP-measure of corticospinal excitability) amplitudes were compared across the cTBS, iTBS and sham TBS protocols and between the initial and retest visits. Overall, across participants, at the initial visit, iTBS facilitated MEPs as compared to baseline excitability, with sham eliciting the same effect. cTBS did not show a significant suppression of excitability compared to baseline MEPs at either visit, and even facilitated MEPs above baseline excitability at a single time point during the repeat visit. Otherwise, effects of TBS were generally diminished in the repeat visit, with iTBS and sham TBS replicating facilitation of MEPs above baseline excitability at similar time points. However, no protocol demonstrated consistent intra-individual modulation of corticospinal excitability upon retest. As the first study to test both iTBS and cTBS against sham TBS across repeat visits, our findings challenge the efficacy and reliability of TBS protocols and emphasize the importance of accounting for sham effects of TBS. Furthermore, given that therapeutic effects of TBS are hypothetically derived from consistent and repeated modulation of brain activity, the non-replicability of plasticity and sham effects call into question these basic mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据