
==== Front
Mol Psychiatry
Mol Psychiatry
Molecular Psychiatry
1359-4184
1476-5578
Nature Publishing Group UK London

38532009
2535
10.1038/s41380-024-02535-3
Article
Chronometric TMS-fMRI of personalized left dorsolateral prefrontal target reveals state-dependency of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex effects
http://orcid.org/0009-0001-4360-9866
Grosshagauer Sarah 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9200-4468
Woletz Michael 1
Vasileiadi Maria 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8730-9793
Linhardt David 1
Nohava Lena 1
Schuler Anna-Lisa 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9944-0190
Windischberger Christian 1
Williams Nolan 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6571-4413
Tik Martin martin.tik@meduniwien.ac.at

13
1 https://ror.org/05n3x4p02 grid.22937.3d 0000 0000 9259 8492 Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2 https://ror.org/0387jng26 grid.419524.f 0000 0001 0041 5028 Research Group Cognition and Plasticity, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
3 https://ror.org/00f54p054 grid.168010.e 0000 0004 1936 8956 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA USA
26 3 2024
26 3 2024
2024
29 9 26782688
18 9 2023
12 3 2024
14 3 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied to a left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) area with a specific connectivity profile to the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) has emerged as a highly effective non-invasive treatment option for depression. However, antidepressant outcomes demonstrate significant variability among therapy plans and individuals. One overlooked contributing factor is the individual brain state at the time of treatment. In this study we used interleaved TMS-fMRI to investigate the influence of brain state on acute TMS effects, both locally and remotely. TMS was performed during rest and during different phases of cognitive task processing. Twenty healthy participants were included in this study. In the first session, imaging data for TMS targeting were acquired, allowing for identification of individualized targets in the left DLPFC based on highest anti-correlation with the sgACC. The second session involved chronometric interleaved TMS-fMRI measurements, with 10 Hz triplets of TMS administered during rest and at distinct timings during an N-back task. Consistent with prior findings, interleaved TMS-fMRI revealed significant BOLD activation changes in the targeted network. The precise timing of TMS relative to the cognitive states during the task demonstrated distinct BOLD response in clinically relevant brain regions, including the sgACC. Employing a standardized timing approach for TMS using a task revealed more consistent modulation of the sgACC at the group level compared to stimulation during rest. In conclusion, our findings strongly suggest that acute local and remote effects of TMS are influenced by brain state during stimulation. This study establishes a basis for considering brain state as a significant factor in designing treatment protocols, possibly improving TMS treatment outcomes.

Subject terms

Depression
Neuroscience
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) has recently gained importance with the FDA clearance of highly individualized therapy plans [1–5]. Multimodal investigations have shown that TMS modifies whole networks rather than only the stimulated area [6–10], providing the opportunity to interact with interconnected areas relevant for depression symptom relief via easily accessible targets, i.e. the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). This region exhibits strong negative functional connectivity (FC) to the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC). Research has shown that the sgACC plays an important role in depression symptom severity and treatment response [11–15]. Analysis of early clinical studies revealed that therapeutic outcomes depend highly on the actual stimulation site within the left DLPFC and its FC to the sgACC [16, 17]. More recently, studies have emphasized the relevance of personalization based on individual anti-correlation patterns [18–22]. Although some treatment protocols lead to high remission and response rates [1, 2], studies still show high variability of TMS effectiveness in neurocognitive research and therapeutic applications [23–26]. Several factors may contribute to these variabilities, including definition of stimulation intensity and stimulation protocols [27] and target site [28]. Importantly, brain state is usually not regarded as a relevant parameter, although there is growing evidence that brain state can affect the TMS response [29–32]. Current treatment protocols perform stimulation during rest/unconstrained thoughts, i.e. the patients are asked to stay awake and to avoid motion [33]. In this setting, the underlying condition of the brain is largely ignored and the brain is treated as within a black box [34].

TMS needs to be interpreted as an interaction between TMS-induced current and ongoing neural processing (i.e. the brain state), as its neuronal impact significantly depends on the susceptibility of brain regions to stimulation [35–39]. This has been demonstrated in motor areas [40, 41], with the difference between active and resting motor threshold (rMT) [42] being probably the most intuitive example. Similar principles apply to other brain regions, as less activated neurons seem to show higher susceptibility to TMS and ceiling effects might prohibit additional activation of already highly activated neurons, resulting in inhibitory effects [35, 36, 43, 44].

To assess state-dependent effects, TMS can be applied during tasks in a chronometric fashion, i.e. at specific timepoints in relation to the task [45–51]. Utilizing the temporal precision of chronometric TMS and spatial accuracy of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), ongoing task processing can be influenced by TMS while the effects in terms of BOLD changes are recorded. Interleaved stimulation and imaging [52–54] allows for a comprehensive assessment of whole-brain TMS-induced BOLD changes and state-dependent effects beyond behavioral assessments. While this methodology has been applied mainly in cognitive research [48, 55–64], state dependency is also of high clinical relevance. Clinical studies in depression treatment found improved outcomes when standardizing brain state prior to or during stimulation [29–32]. In addition, a recent study [65] revealed the influence of EEG alpha phase during TMS pulses on modulations of sgACC FC. However, evidence for state-dependency of TMS effects in clinically relevant areas is still quite limited.

In the current study we applied chronometric interleaved TMS-fMRI to assess differences in TMS-induced BOLD response on a whole-brain level across different brain states. Emphasis was placed on the cognitive state of the brain. Specifically, we targeted nodes of the cognitive control network [66], which incorporates the DLPFC as well as the sgACC. Within this network, MDD manifests in terms of hypoactivation of the DLPFC co-occurring with hyperactivation of the sgACC [66]. Successful depression treatments, including TMS, have been found to normalize these two aspects by increasing DLPFC- and decreasing sgACC activity [3]. To assess the relevance of state-dependency for TMS targeting this network, we selected the N-back task [67–69] to induce standardized brain states. This decision was supported by the known interaction of the task with the cognitive control network and the decline in working memory performance associated with depression [70, 71].

Similar to a pioneering study investigating TMS during N-back task [62], we leveraged precise timing of pulses in relation to the task and performed chronometric TMS to an individualized resting-state connectivity informed DLPFC target. Consequently, we hypothesized that the neural response, as indicated by the BOLD-signal, would be dependent on the timing of TMS during the 2-back task. Specifically, we theorized that minor adjustments in TMS timing would result in distinct effects on the targeted brain regions, i.e. the DLPFC and sgACC. To account for non-specific effects we included TMS during 0-back as an active control condition.

Materials and methods

Participants

26 healthy, young individuals were recruited through advertisements on the public boards for study recruitment in the General Hospital of Vienna as well as through university channels. Participants were carefully screened for contraindications to MRI/TMS, including implanted devices, claustrophobia, pregnancy as well as history of epilepsy, neurological or psychiatric diseases and severe chronic illnesses. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Two participants were excluded after session 1, as the TMS intensity required to detect a reliable motor response could not be achieved. Four participants were excluded due to motion, resulting in 20 participants (12 female, 8 male, age range 18–39, mean ± std 25 ± 6 y) for the final analysis. Measurements were performed in two sessions, separated by a minimum of two days. The workflow is shown in Fig. 1. Imaging data was acquired on a Siemens PrismaFit 3 T MR scanner (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). In the first session, imaging data required for TMS-fMRI planning was acquired and participants were familiarized with the task. Based on the acquired resting-state data, the individual resting-state networks of the sgACC were calculated and used for target definition [20]. In the second session, interleaved TMS-fMRI was performed during rest and task paradigms.Fig. 1 Overview of the conducted experiment, showing both measurement sessions and the task.

The N-back task was performed at two difficulty levels (N = 0 and N = 2) in a blocked design, consisting of three blocks per difficulty. The 0-back condition was designed as an active control condition. During session 2, interleaved TMS bursts were delivered in 10 Hz triplets at 100% rMT to the individualized target site during three different states and considering two different timings for stimulation during the task.

Image acquisition

In the first session, the manufacturer’s 64-channel head coil was used for resting-state acquisition (TE = 38 ms, TR = 2000 ms, flip angle 77°, voxel size 1.8 × 1.8 × 2 mm³, MB = 4), a run of the N-back task (TE = 38 ms, TR = 1000 ms, flip angle 60°, voxel size 3 × 3 × 3 mm³, 40 slices, 0.6 mm slice gap, MB = 4) and T1-weighted imaging (TR = 2100 ms, TE = 3.67 ms, flip angle 8°, voxel size 1 mm isotropic). The resting-state acquisition paradigm was selected due to previously evaluated reliability of sgACC-DLPFC FC networks [72].

During the second session, interleaved TMS-fMRI was performed using three dedicated 7-channel receive arrays [73, 74]: one mounted directly underneath the TMS coil placed on the left DLPFC, the second on the contralateral DLPFC and a third underneath the participant’s head (occipital position) to achieve whole-brain coverage. Functional imaging was performed with the same parameters as the N-back acquisition during session 1, enabling the interleaving of TMS bursts with image acquisition. In addition, an anatomical MP2RAGE scan (TE = 2.98 ms, TR = 4000 ms, TI1 = 700 ms, TI2 = 2500 ms, flip angle 4°/5°, voxel size 1 mm isotropic, 160 slices) was acquired. Python-based software was developed for synchronizing tasks, image acquisition, and TMS pulses. MR triggers and task-based triggers were fed into an analog in-house built AND-gate, which forwarded triggers at the correct time points to the stimulator. To avoid interactions of TMS pulses with image acquisition, an additional delay of 80 ms for triggering was defined at the stimulator.

Neuronavigation

To achieve individualized targets for each participant, the resting-state data acquired during the first session was analyzed. Preprocessing of data was performed using a dedicated in-house developed pipeline (RSTools, for details see Supplementary Material). To determine the TMS target network, seed voxel based correlation analysis [75] was used. The seed was defined as a 10 mm radius sphere representing the sgACC centered at MNI 6, 16, −10 and masked for gray matter [16]. For target definition and neuronavigation the Brainsight software suite (Rogue Research Inc., Canada) was used. The coil position was defined by masking the participant’s FC map with a left DLPFC mask as defined by Cash et al. [20] and projecting it onto the extracted brain surface. The most negative cluster on the surface was identified and defined as the coil center. Coil orientation was defined with a 45° angle between coil handle and brain midline.

TMS was performed using a MagProX100 stimulator and the MR-compatible MRi-B91 (MagVenture, Farum, Denmark) TMS coil. During session 2, the stimulation intensity was defined for each participant based on resting motor threshold (rMT). rMT was determined as the lowest stimulator output resulting in 5 out of 10 visible twitches of the right first dorsal interosseous muscle [76]. Motor threshold definition was performed inside the scanner room, using the sandwiched TMS and 7-channel receive coil array.

Using a Polaris neuronavigation camera (NDI, Waterloo, Canada) and 3D-printed metal-free optical trackers for participant (mounted onto a mouthpiece) and TMS coil, the coil was positioned on the individual DLPFC target and fixed using a suitable holder (MagVenture, Farum, Denmark).

Task and stimulation paradigm

The N-back task [67, 68] consisted of a 30 s baseline at the beginning, six task blocks, and 30 s baseline between blocks. Each task block (0-back, 2-back) was repeated three times in a randomized order. The 0-back condition and the different stimulation onsets were designed as active controls to account for sensory-motor responses, TMS-related attention effects and task specific effects of no interest (visual processing including visual attention). During 0-back, participants were asked to indicate the appearance of the letter “X” by button press. In the 2-back condition, participants were instructed to press a button if the currently displayed letter matched the letter presented two positions earlier (“matching” of stimuli [77]). This required participants to continuously update and recall information, making the 2-back task more challenging and requiring working memory capacity. Each block consisted of 40 individual letters, 8 of them being target letters, i.e. requiring a button press response. Letters were displayed for 0.5 s, followed by a blank of 1.5 s (see Fig. 1).

During interleaved TMS-fMRI, TMS was applied between slice acquisitions in triplets of 10 Hz at 100% of rMT. Each task was combined with three conditions for TMS: (1) no stimulation, (2) stimulation 250 ms before letter appearance, and (3) stimulation 150 ms after letter appearance. The latter was hypothesized to interfere effectively with the participant’s matching process [74] (i.e. the cognitive state of interest), as well as present a more susceptible state of the DLPFC to TMS. From here on, we refer to stimulation after letter onset as “effective timing”. Stimulation prior to letter onset was hypothesized to not interact directly with matching processes, as no visual processing did take place yet and will from here on be referred to as “ineffective timing”. Stimulation was performed on target letters as well as on an equal number of random non-target letters for both difficulties (16 TMS triplets per condition). Each task/TMS combination was delivered in a block-wise fashion, matching the total number of six blocks. The order of blocks was pseudo-randomized for each participant, with two blocks of no stimulation in the middle of the run. In addition to stimulation during the task, a run of stimulation during rest was performed. This run was identical in timing and stimulation pattern to a task-TMS run, however, the participant was instructed to fixate a cross and think about nothing in particular. The order of rest and task runs was counterbalanced between participants.

Behavioral analysis

To evaluate the potential behavioral effects of TMS under different task conditions and stimulation timings, we calculated mean reaction time (RT) for correct trials and accuracy for each participant. Additionally, we computed the balanced integration score (BIS), as described by [78]. This score combines RT and accuracy into one measure, giving them equal weights by z-standardization. Positive BIS indicates above average performance for a given task, while negative BIS corresponds to below average performance. Z-standardization was based on the average performance metrics for a specific task (0-back, 2-back), independent of TMS condition (no TMS, effective/ineffective timing). Paired t-tests between the behavioral parameters obtained during blocks without and with TMS were performed at p < 0.05 to assess whether TMS affected behavior. For the BOLD effects of interest effect size was calculated in terms of Cohen’s d. Due to button box issues that prevented response logging for one participant, we excluded this individual from the behavioral analysis. The behavioral data analysis thus includes data from 19 participants.

Preprocessing of TMS-fMRI data

Acquired EPIs were preprocessed including ANTS [79] N4BiasFieldCorrection and despiking (AFNI) as well as SPM12 realignment, normalization to MNI space and smoothing with a Gaussian kernel of 6 mm full width at half maximum. Image sets were visually checked for quality as well as based on framewise displacement (FD, [80]). Severe motion artifacts, corresponding to max. FD > 1.5 mm or mean FD > 0.15 mm caused the exclusion of 4 datasets.

Statistical analysis

Analysis of preprocessed TMS-fMRI data was conducted using SPM12. Single-subject first-level analysis was performed using a general linear model. Linear regression was performed for each voxel based on generalized least squares with a global approximate AR(1) autoregression model.

For TMS during rest, one participant had to be excluded as no stimulation time point information was available due to corrupted log-files. For GLM analysis, individual stimulation timepoints were modeled as events. In the N-back runs, task blocks and button-press events were modeled with regressors to account for all activation changes associated with the task itself (0-back, 2-back) and motor response. For blocks with stimulation, individual TMS pulses were additionally included as separate events, differentiating between the different states as described previously. This resulted in a total of seven regressors: 0-back task, 2-back task, button press, 0-back effective TMS, 0-back ineffective TMS, 2-back effective TMS, 2-back ineffective TMS. In addition, six motion parameters derived from image realignment were included. 2-back TMS estimates were contrasted against the corresponding 0-back TMS responses, i.e. TMS with equivalent timing, to account for non-specific TMS effects. Same analysis was performed for data acquired without TMS during a separate session, by modeling artificial events identical to TMS timing (i.e. events which mimic stimulation timepoints, although no stimulation occurred). To assess whether the event timing causes changes in modeled brain response, the same analysis was performed for data acquired without TMS during a separate session, by modeling artificial events identical to TMS timing. These results were subsequently compared to results for interleaved TMS-fMRI.

Second-level analysis was performed to address the research question if TMS during 2-back at the correct time point for cognitive processing results in distinct local and remote BOLD changes. The results were double controlled for cognitive state (i.e. effective and ineffective timing) and task processing (i.e. 2-back versus 0-back). Specifically, a model was created to investigate differences between timings in the 2-back task, using TMS during the 0-back task as an active control condition. Subject-level contrasts were further analyzed on a group level in a flexible factorial model. Both timings were contrasted against each other, resulting in the target contrast (2-back effective > 0-back effective) vs (2-back ineffective > 0-back ineffective). Second, group level t-tests were performed for TMSin all states to assess TMS BOLD response considering inter-subject variance. Within this second analysis, results were not controlled for unspecific task or TMS-related effects.

Significance levels for all group-level image analysis were set to p < 0.05 for cluster-level family-wise error (FWEc) correction (with p < 0.001 for cluster definition). To investigate the effect of TMS during different states on the targeted sgACC, region of interest (ROI) analysis of percent signal change (PSC) was performed using Python. The ROI was defined a-priori as a sphere with 10 mm radius (MNI 6, 16, −10 [16]). In addition, a more pregenual area of the ACC (pgACC) which has been associated with increased glucose metabolism [81] as well as low frequency fluctuations in MDD [82], was investigated (sphere at MNI 0, 42, 6). For each participant, individual electric field hotspots were calculated post-hoc based on SimNIBS [83, 84] simulations of the actual coil position and orientation (see Supplementary Fig. S1). These simulations were used to derive a left DLPFC group ROI based on the average electric field hotspot center of mass (see Supplementary Material, sphere at MNI −43, 39, 27). Finally, personalized ROIs were placed on each individual’s hotspot. Extracted mean PSCs for each ROI were tested for statistical significance in one sample as well as paired t-tests.

Results

TMS targets and stimulation during rest

Coil positions were derived based on individual FC to the sgACC - individual targets are shown in Fig. 2A, overlaying an average FC map of the sgACC. rMT ranged between 63 and 95% of the maximum stimulator output, corresponding to dI/dt of 106–178 A/µs. Resulting E-field magnitude hotspots (99.9-th percentile) corresponded to values between 65 and 118 V/m. Figure 2B shows the activation map for TMS during rest. Statistically significant clusters (p < 0.001 cluster detection, p < 0.05 FWEc) are listed in Table 1. Besides sensory and auditory activations in the temporal superior lobes as well as insulae, significant activations can be found in the right DLPFC, thalamic areas, mid cingulate cortex, SMA and in the cerebellum.Fig. 2 Individualized targeting and TMS during rest.

Group-averaged resting-state functional connectivity for the sgACC seed and individual functional connectivity guided target positions are shown in (A). B displays t-value group maps of TMS during rest at p < 0.05 FWE corrected at cluster level (p < 0.001 cluster defining threshold).

Table 1 Statistically significant (p < 0.05, FWE corrected on cluster level, p < 0.001 cluster defining threshold) clusters for TMS during rest and TMS during different cognitive states.

State	Cluster	Peak	MNI	Region	
kE	pFWE-corr	punc	pFWE-corr	T	punc	
Rest	5942	0.000	0.000	0.000	14.53	0.000	44 −32 22	Rolandic_Oper_R	
2461	0.000	0.000	0.003	9.38	0.000	−60 −24 22	SupraMarginal_L	
750	0.000	0.000	0.004	9.17	0.000	8 −4 60	Supp_Motor_Area_L	
104	0.026	0.001	0.041	7.80	0.000	−34 −52 −24	Cerebelum_6_L	
501	0.000	0.000	0.072	7.50	0.000	46 40 6	Frontal_Inf_Tri_R	
1261	0.000	0.000	0.199	6.90	0.000	14 −74 18	Calcarine_R	
178	0.000	0.000	0.275	6.66	0.000	16 −52 2	Lingual_R	
383	0.000	0.000	0.362	6.44	0.000	−6 −74 −20	Cerebelum_6_L	
161	0.002	0.000	0.846	5.52	0.000	8 −42 −2	Lingual_R	
121	0.012	0.000	0.898	5.40	0.000	2 −30 84	Paracentral_Lobule_R	
127	0.009	0.000	0.910	5.36	0.000	2 −20 12	Thal_PuM_R	
0-back

effective

	4741	0.000	0.000	0.000	11.56	0.000	46 −41 24	SupraMarginal_R	
2775	0.000	0.000	0.021	7.98	0.000	−44 −26 12	Temporal_Sup_L	
123	0.013	0.000	0.367	6.26	0.000	12 −58 −10	Cerebelum_4_5_R	
111	0.022	0.001	0.527	5.96	0.000	−12 −62 −26	Cerebelum_6_L	
240	0.000	0.000	0.877	5.33	0.000	54 0 48	Precentral_R	
265	0.000	0.000	0.884	5.31	0.000	10 −4 66	Supp_Motor_Area_R	
109	0.024	0.001	1.000	4.47	0.000	0 −54 62	Precuneus_L	
0-back

ineffective

	2898	0.000	0.000	0.011	8.30	0.000	46 −32 18	Rolandic_Oper_R	
1282	0.000	0.000	0.075	7.29	0.000	−46 −38 28	SupraMarginal_L	
148	0.009	0.000	0.857	5.30	0.000	10 −62 −14	Cerebelum_6_R	
105	0.045	0.002	0.995	4.69	0.000	6 −4 68	Supp_Motor_Area_R	
2-back

effective

	4352	0.000	0.000	0.000	10.94	0.000	46 −30 20	Rolandic_Oper_R	
2919	0.000	0.000	0.006	8.63	0.000	−54 −34 18	Temporal_Sup_L	
202	0.001	0.000	0.122	7.05	0.000	−46 20 26	Frontal_Inf_Tri_L	
118	0.015	0.000	0.929	5.20	0.000	46 26 14	Frontal_Inf_Tri_R	
2-back

ineffective

	3752	0.000	0.000	0.000	12.75	0.000	48 −28 26	SupraMarginal_R	
705	0.000	0.000	0.042	7.60	0.000	−58 −22 18	SupraMarginal_L	
101	0.024	0.001	0.048	7.53	0.000	−2 −66 −16	Vermis_6	
131	0.006	0.000	0.071	7.33	0.000	34 10 12	Insula_R	
245	0.000	0.000	0.465	6.12	0.000	−54 0 6	Rolandic_Oper_L	
107	0.018	0.000	0.796	5.55	0.000	44 2 54	Frontal_Mid_2_R	
For each cluster the peak t-value is displayed. Anatomical regions were assigned using AAL3 toolbox [102] and local maxima labeling.

Brain response during chronometric TMS

Analyzing TMS-timing effects on the N-back target contrast (2-back actively controlled by 0-back) showed that effective timing of TMS (post-letter onset) was associated with higher activation in left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) extending to areas of the left DLPFC on a group level (Fig. 3 and Table 2). Importantly, decreased activation with effective compared to ineffective timing can be found close to the subgenual ACC regions (peak at MNI = 2, 30, −6; t = 4.82) as well as in caudate regions. The contrast for our main result in sgACC revealed a Cohen’s d of 0.61, which can be defined as a large effect and a subsequent estimated post-hoc power of 0.84.Fig. 3 Brain regions showing increased (hot) and decreased (blue-green) activation for TMS effective vs. ineffective timing during N-BACK (thresholded at p < 0.05, family-wise error corrected on cluster level).

Compared to TMS during 0-back as a control condition, effective vs. ineffective stimulation during 2-back leads to modulation of key regions linked to clinical TMS effects. Importantly, areas of the left DLPFC/inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) show higher activation and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC), right inferior parietal lobule (IPL) and striatal areas lower activation if stimulation was performed in the effective timing.

Table 2 Brain regions showing statistically significant (p < 0.05, FWE corrected on cluster level, p < 0.001 cluster defining threshold) increased and decreased activation for TMS during effective timing compared to ineffective timing.

	Cluster	Peak	MNI	Region	
kE	pFWE-corr	punc	pFWE-corr	T	punc	
Effective > ineffective	353	0.000	0.000	0.016	5.67	0.000	−50 12 10	Frontal_Inf_Oper_L	
			0.241	4.84	0.000	−44 28 6	Frontal_Inf_Tri_L	
			0.878	4.18	0.000	−54 20 16	Frontal_Inf_Tri_L	
Ineffective > effective	309	0.000	0.000	0.019	5.62	0.000	−14 12 24	Caudate_L	
			0.063	5.27	0.000	−18 2 30	Caudate_L	
			0.497	4.55	0.000	−12 −12 30	Cingulate_Mid_L	
244	0.001	0.000	0.076	5.22	0.000	52 −68 16	Temporal_Mid_R	
			0.117	5.08	0.000	40 −70 20	Temporal_Mid_R	
			0.758	4.31	0.000	50 −68 32	Angular_R	
122	0.046	0.002	0.252	4.82	0.000	2 30 −6	ACC_sub_R	
			0.574	4.48	0.000	12 26 −4	Caudate_R	
			0.999	3.75	0.000	8 36 0	ACC_sub_R	
The target contrast was (2-back effective > 0-back effective) vs. (2-back ineffective > 0-back ineffective). For each cluster the three highest t-value peaks are displayed. Regions were assigned using AAL3 Toolbox [102] and local maxima labeling.

Figure 4A, B shows the comparison of PSC of the detected clusters (sgACC, IFG) with pure task effects as derived from the artificial events analysis. Statistically significant pairwise difference (p < 0.05) between timings could only be detected for TMS, but not for the artificial events, i.e. if no TMS was performed. In the predefined ROIs no statistically significant difference between effective and ineffective TMS timings could be detected in a paired t-test (Fig. 4C).Fig. 4 ROI analysis for effective and ineffective timing during N-back task.

For each ROI, subject-level mean PSCs for the effective (2-back effective > 0-back effective) and ineffective (2-back ineffective > 0-back ineffective) condition were extracted. (A) and (B) show ROI analysis of clusters showing significant differences in activation for differential timing of TMS in comparison to artificial events, i.e. same timepoints of the task but no TMS was performed. In (C) extracted mean PSCs for the predefined ROIs during TMS with different timings is displayed. P values correspond to paired t-tests between timings.

Brain response in relevant ROIs during rest and task-based stimulation

Statistically significant clusters are shown in Table 2. On a group-level stimulation during rest did not result in significant effects in the sgACC (mean ± standard deviation: −0.260 ± 1.760, one sample t-test: p = 0.537, t = −0.629). Negative mean PSCs could be detected in all task-based states (0-back effective: −1.02 ± 3.89, p = 0.267, t = −1.144; 0-back ineffective: −2.07 ± 2.71, p = 0.003, t = −3.334; 2-back effective: −1.91 ± 3.81, p = 0.042, t = −2.181; 2-back ineffective: −0.83 ± 2.89, p = 0.229, t = −1.243), with statistical significance reached for 0-back ineffective and 2-back effective timing.

In the pgACC a statistically significant effect was detected for TMS during rest (p = 0.009, t = −2.896) and 2-back effective timing (p = 0.03, t = −2.351). In the left DLPFC group-ROI a significant positive effect was detected for 2-back effective timing (p = 0.005, t = 3.189), while personalized ROIs showed significant effects during rest (p = 0.002, t = 3.686). Unthresholded activation maps for TMS during different states (rest, 0-back effective, 0-back ineffective, 2-back effective, 2-back ineffective) as well as ROI analysis can be found in the Supplementary Material.

Behavioral results

Mean accuracy across both tasks and TMS conditions was notable high (0-back: 1 ± 0, 0-back effective TMS: 0.983 ± 0.051, 0-back ineffective TMS: 0.991 ± 0.034, 2-back: 0.974 ± 0.038, 2-back effective TMS: 0.961 ± 0.031, 2-back ineffective TMS: 0.942 ± 0.066). Accuracy was lower in the 2-back condition if TMS was performed with ineffective timing (p = 0.043), but not during any other condition.

For 0-back without TMS the mean RT was 0.471 ± 0.064 s, with effective TMS 0.480 ± 0.111 s and for ineffective TMS 0.436 ± 0.050 s. In comparison, mean RT for 2-back without TMS was 0.631 ± 0.166, with effective TMS timing 0.564 ± 0.138 s and with ineffective timing 0.588 ± 0.224 s. There was a significant decrease in RT for the 0-back task with ineffective TMS (p = 0.003) compared to without TMS, indicating faster responses with TMS. Effective timing did not result in a significant change in RT (p = 0.727). For the 2-back task RT was not statistically significantly different from without TMS(effective: p = 0.081; ineffective: p = 0.379). BIS scores did not indicate significant changes in overall task performance. All behavioral parameters can be found in the Supplementary Material.

Discussion

Within this study we investigated state-dependency by applying TMS interleaved with fMRI during rest and in a chronometric fashion during a task. Emphasis was put on the left DLPFC-sgACC axis as part of the cognitive control network, pertinent to TMS depression treatment. Importantly, we examined how timing of TMS relative to cognitive task processing influences target engagement. Based on the engagement of the DLPFC and the known interactions with depression, a 2-back memory task was chosen. To account for attention-related and non-specific TMS effects we included a 0-back active control condition. To our knowledge, this study is the first application of chronometric interleaved TMS-fMRI. Combining the spatial accuracy of fMRI with the temporal precision of TMS, this methodology offers a unique perspective on state-dependent effects.

TMS during rest

In general, TMS response during rest co-localizes with prior investigations [85, 86]. However, we present novel interleaved TMS-fMRI data for personalized targets in the left DLPFC. Notably, we observed sub-threshold group-level activation at the stimulation site, adding to the discussion about activation beneath the coil [87]. The use of 100% rMT in our study, as opposed to higher intensities in previous work, may have influenced these outcomes. In addition, variance in actual target sites across participants could contribute to reduced group-level effects. On a single-subject level only some participants showed increased BOLD responses under the coil, while others did not. Interestingly, ROI analysis revealed statistically significant PSC in personalized DLPFC targets, i.e. in subject-specific areas of high E-field. This highlights the importance of verification of actual stimulation sites as well as E-field modeling, as areas of high E-field are not necessarily identical to the coil center (see Supplementary fig. S7). In addition, there might be an effect of individual participants’ state fluctuations that interact differently with stimulation in the absence of a task [65].

TMS timing

For stimulation during task, we selected two timings which participants were not able to differentiate between. During 2-back, individual processes of working memory (encoding, maintenance, retrieval) happen simultaneously, i.e. cannot be separated in the temporal domain [77, 88]. Nevertheless, it has been shown previously that in the timeframe which was associated with effective stimulation (approx. 100 ms after letter onset), an increase in frontal theta power occurs [89]. Interestingly, modulation of this parameter prior to rTMS treatments has also been associated with improved clinical response [30]. Furthermore, we expected a more optimal pre-engagement of the targeted network during this time point, resulting in higher susceptibility of the DLPFC to TMS. In contrast, ineffective timing refers to the stimulation occurring within blanks shortly before the appearance of the next letter, i.e. no new stimulus had to be processed and the brain is in a maintenance/attention phase. Thus, we expected less pre-engagement of the DLPFC.

Behavioral effects

Previous studies [50, 90–93] indicate that priming of participants with TMS before stimuli onset may improve cognitive function. This also partly matches with results of this study, as statistically significant improvements in reaction time could be identified for TMS pulses applied pre letter onset (ineffective timing) compared to no TMS during 0-back task (see Supplementary fig. S2). For the effective timing we could not detect significant changes in behavior, which again indicates that depending on the timing in relation to the task, based on the temporal activation pattern of different network nodes, TMS results in differential behavioral effects. For the 2-back task only, TMS with ineffective timing resulted in a statistically significant decrease in accuracy, while no other parameter was affected. This finding contrasts with prior research, where TMS was shown to have beneficial effects on working memory performance [59, 89]. Specifically, studies [59] and [89] reported enhanced working memory capabilities following TMS intervention, suggesting a potential modulatory role of TMS in cognitive tasks. One plausible explanation could be that participants in our sample achieved almost 100% of accuracy in the baseline measurements. Accuracy, however, is based on a total number of 40 trials per condition, with only 8 true positives and 32 true negatives. Thus, effects of missing a correct trial on accuracy are comparably small. Considering the young age of our study population administering the 2-back condition of the n-back task might have been relatively easy for our participants which might also explain low behavioral effects of TMS. The interaction between TMS effects, individual’s ability and task difficulty has been shown previously [44, 58, 94]. The results of the current study might therefore inform future studies adjusting task difficulty individually [39]. Additionally, we did not observe consistent changes (either in positive or negative direction) in reaction time at the group level. This could be associated with the specific timing of stimulation in relation to the task, i.e. TMS was probably not performed during ideal time windows to enhance reaction time. These ideal time windows might also differ between participants. However, affecting cognitive function was not the aim of this study and would also require another TMS target [63].

Chronometric TMS during the 2-back task

We identified the changes in BOLD effects solely related to different timings of TMS relative to cognitive processing in a 2-back condition by contrasting for non-specific TMS as well as non-specific task effects on a single-subject level. While effective (post-letter onset) timing of TMS revealed higher activations compared to ineffective (prior to letter onset) timing in the left DLPFC/IFG, decreased activation could be found in areas of the striatum, the right IPL and areas of the sgACC. Left IFG is known to be activated during verbal N-back [68], representing a task relevant area which shows increased activity with post-letter onset TMS timing even though the stimulation target was located more anterior. As no statistically significant changes in behavioral data could be found with TMS for the 2-back task, this might indicate a compensatory mechanism of action to counteract the distraction caused by the TMS burst [39, 95, 96]. This corroborates former findings by Webler et al. [62], who found a similar hotspot when comparing only 2-back TMS vs. 0-back TMS. However, during their study, stimulation was performed at unsynchronized timepoints in relation to the task, presenting an average response over all task phases.

Areas showing decreased activation with effective timing comprise among others striatal areas and areas of the ACC. This modulation of TMS effects indicates that timing and underlying state could play an important role for the effectiveness of clinical TMS, as these areas are considered highly relevant in depression treatment. Using TMS-fMRI, the general possibility of modulating activity within these areas has been shown previously [9, 86, 97]. Here, we show that chronometric TMS differentially affects these areas, independent of non-specific effects.

State dependency of acute TMS effects

We identified that DLPFC-TMS effects on the sgACC highly depend on the underlying brain state. During rest, variability in terms of effect direction within the pool of participants resulted in no significant effect on a group level on the sgACC. Across participants, mean sgACC PSCs were statistically significant below zero only for TMS during 0-back with ineffective timing and for TMS during 2-back with effective timing. TMS during these states resulted in more consistent sgACC effects between participants, indicating the potential to standardize TMS response across participants by stimulating during a clearly defined optimal state. In addition, TMS response below the coil, i.e. on the left DLPFC, critically depends on the underlying state. Interestingly, statistically significant activation of personalized DLPFC ROIs could be detected for TMS during rest. Thus, task as well as timing of TMS in relation to the task is essential, as the state of the stimulation site and the underlying network highly depends on the phase of the task and thus also the susceptibility to TMS is affected [39, 43].

Clinical relevance

Based on investigations in healthy participants we show that chronometric TMS is feasible and differentially modulates clinically relevant regions during task. The stimulation protocol emulates parameters of an actual TMS treatment, in terms of frequency and FC-derived individual target. Previous pioneering work [65] on TMS state dependency using EEG phases showed similar effects in both, depressive and healthy cohorts, but even higher effect magnitude in depressed individuals. Furthermore, it has been suggested that psychotherapy adjacent to rTMS may enhance treatment response[31, 32]. Similar effects might occur for task-induced state dependency, however, this still needs to be determined. In our study we could reveal that slight differences in timing differentially engage the targeted areas within the cognitive control network. Importantly, we could achieve higher activation in the IFG and decreased response in the sgACC with effective timing compared to ineffective timing. This is the same direction of effects required for counter-acting dysregulated activations within the targeted network during depression. Furthermore, we could achieve negative sgACC responses during state-based stimulation in a larger number of participants compared to during rest. These findings are particularly relevant as the sgACC’s BOLD response to TMS has recently been linked to the antidepressant effects of rTMS treatments [98]. Our results suggest that state-dependent stimulation can enhance acute sgACC effects through optimal pre-engagement of the target network, which could also further improve efficacy of TMS treatments [29–31]. However, stimulating during the wrong state could also render stimulation ineffective. Thus, further research is needed to identify the optimal state for TMS depression treatment prior to considering the inclusion of brain state into treatment protocols. Recent developments indicate that highly intense treatment paradigms including a large number of pulses in a relatively short amount of time resulted in comparable or superior outcomes compared to previous studies [1, 2, 4]. Based on the results derived from our study, one contributor to the improved response rates could be that by stimulating during different time points throughout a day, the probability of hitting a preferable state is increased and could also compensate for stimulations during suboptimal timepoints.

Limitations

This study is limited by the small sample size of healthy participants only. Further validations in larger as well as clinical populations are needed. The targeted network as well as activation patterns during our task conditions overlap with the cingulo-opercular network, as defined in [99], which is also activated during uncomfortable stimuli [100]. However, we could also detect overlaps with the resting-state networks which have previously been associated with changes in functional connectivity after TMS [86] (Supplementary fig. S8). It is challenging to differentiate between effects caused by actual network stimulation and non-specific TMS effects. Considering that sham TMS may not be sufficient as a control paradigm [101], we think that including an active control condition is the best possible option within this study design. Importantly, this study overcomes sham effects by comparing different TMS timings during different tasks while stimulation protocol and target remain constant. Stimulation with slightly different timings as well as during different tasks acted as active control conditions. All TMS conditions create identical somatosensory and auditory effects, thus, differences in brain response are associated with the interaction of TMS with the underlying brain state. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that, although we regressed out general task activation, timing effects might be partly associated with time-dependent task activation. However, analysis of task data based on artificial events did not confirm this.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the current study could show that underlying brain state affects acute TMS effects in the targeted sgACC. As current research suggests that clinical response is associated with direct sgACC BOLD effects, more consistent/stronger engagement of deep target areas could lead to increased treatment successes. By incorporating these insights on state dependency of the DLPFC-sgACC axis into treatment protocols, e.g. by adjusting frequency and duration of TMS sessions or combining stimulation with tasks, there is a potential to enhance TMS responses. Our findings pave the way for a more nuanced approach to TMS treatment, where both the location and the timing of stimulation are tailored to maximize target engagement. As the field of neuromodulation continues to evolve, such insights could be key to enhancing treatment response and consistency of TMS outcomes.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Material

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41380-024-02535-3.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (P33180).

Author contributions

Sarah Grosshagauer: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization. Michael Woletz: Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing. Maria Vasileiadi: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation. David Linhardt: Methodology, Writing. Lena Nohava: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Anna-Lisa Schuler: Writing, Investigation. Christian Windischberger: Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. Nolan Williams: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Martin Tik: Conceptualization, Project administration, Investigation, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Medical University of Vienna.

Data availability

All anonymized data and analysis codes are available upon request in accordance with the requirements of the institute, the funding body, and the institutional ethics board.

Code availability

All anonymized data and analysis codes are available upon request in accordance with the requirements of the institute, the funding body, and the institutional ethics board.

Competing interests

NW is a named inventor on Stanford-owned intellectual property relating to accelerated TMS pulse pattern sequences and neuroimaging-based TMS targeting; he has served on scientific advisory boards for Otsuka, NeuraWell, Nooma, and Halo Neuroscience; and he has equity/stock options in Magnus Medical, NeuraWell, and Sooma. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Cole EJ Stimpson KH Bentzley BS Gulser M Cherian K Tischler C Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy for treatment-resistant depression AJP 2020 177 716 26 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720
Cole EJ, Stimpson KH, Bentzley BS, Gulser M, Cherian K, Tischler C, et al. Stanford accelerated intelligent neuromodulation therapy for treatment-resistant depression. AJP. 2020;177:716–26.
2. Cole EJ Phillips AL Bentzley BS Stimpson KH Nejad R Barmak F Stanford neuromodulation therapy (SNT): a double-blind randomized controlled trial AJP 2022 179 132 41 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.20101429
Cole EJ, Phillips AL, Bentzley BS, Stimpson KH, Nejad R, Barmak F, et al. Stanford neuromodulation therapy (SNT): a double-blind randomized controlled trial. AJP. 2022;179:132–41.
3. Chen L Klooster DCW Tik M Thomas EHX Downar J Fitzgerald PB Accelerated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat major depression: the past, present, and future Harv Rev Psychiatry 2023 31 142 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000364 37171474
Chen L, Klooster DCW, Tik M, Thomas EHX, Downar J, Fitzgerald PB, et al. Accelerated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat major depression: the past, present, and future. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2023;31:142.37171474
4. van Rooij SJH, Arulpragasam AR, McDonald WM, Philip NS. Accelerated TMS - moving quickly into the future of depression treatment. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2024;49:128–37.
5. Cole E O’Sullivan SJ Tik M Williams NR Accelerated theta burst stimulation: Safety, efficacy, and future advancements Biol Psychiatry 2024 95 523 35 10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.12.004 38383091
Cole E, O’Sullivan SJ, Tik M, Williams NR. Accelerated theta burst stimulation: Safety, efficacy, and future advancements. Biol Psychiatry. 2024;95:523–35.38383091
6. Li X Nahas Z Kozel FA Anderson B Bohning DE George MS Acute left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation in depressed patients is associated with immediately increased activity in prefrontal cortical as well as subcortical regions Biol Psychiatry 2004 55 882 90 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.01.017 15110731
Li X, Nahas Z, Kozel FA, Anderson B, Bohning DE, George MS. Acute left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation in depressed patients is associated with immediately increased activity in prefrontal cortical as well as subcortical regions. Biol Psychiatry. 2004;55:882–90.15110731
7. Fox MD Halko MA Eldaief MC Pascual-Leone A Measuring and manipulating brain connectivity with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging (fcMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) Neuroimage 2012 62 2232 43 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.035 22465297
Fox MD, Halko MA, Eldaief MC, Pascual-Leone A. Measuring and manipulating brain connectivity with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging (fcMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Neuroimage. 2012;62:2232–43.22465297
8. Siddiqi SH Kording KP Parvizi J Fox MD Causal mapping of human brain function Nat Rev Neurosci 2022 23 361 75 10.1038/s41583-022-00583-8 35444305
Siddiqi SH, Kording KP, Parvizi J, Fox MD. Causal mapping of human brain function. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2022;23:361–75.35444305
9. Tik M Hoffmann A Sladky R Tomova L Hummer A Navarro de Lara L Towards understanding rTMS mechanism of action: Stimulation of the DLPFC causes network-specific increase in functional connectivity Neuroimage 2017 162 289 96 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.022 28912081
Tik M, Hoffmann A, Sladky R, Tomova L, Hummer A, Navarro de Lara L, et al. Towards understanding rTMS mechanism of action: Stimulation of the DLPFC causes network-specific increase in functional connectivity. Neuroimage. 2017;162:289–96.28912081
10. Vasileiadi M Schuler A-L Woletz M Linhardt D Windischberger C Tik M Functional connectivity explains how neuronavigated TMS of posterior temporal subregions differentially affect language processing Brain Stimul 2023 16 1062 71 10.1016/j.brs.2023.06.014 37390891
Vasileiadi M, Schuler A-L, Woletz M, Linhardt D, Windischberger C, Tik M. Functional connectivity explains how neuronavigated TMS of posterior temporal subregions differentially affect language processing. Brain Stimul. 2023;16:1062–71.37390891
11. Drevets WC Savitz J Trimble M The subgenual anterior cingulate cortex in mood disorders CNS Spectr 2008 13 663 81 10.1017/S1092852900013754 18704022
Drevets WC, Savitz J, Trimble M. The subgenual anterior cingulate cortex in mood disorders. CNS Spectr. 2008;13:663–81.18704022
12. Myers-Schulz B Koenigs M Functional anatomy of ventromedial prefrontal cortex: implications for mood and anxiety disorders Mol Psychiatry 2012 17 132 41 10.1038/mp.2011.88 21788943
Myers-Schulz B, Koenigs M. Functional anatomy of ventromedial prefrontal cortex: implications for mood and anxiety disorders. Mol Psychiatry. 2012;17:132–41.21788943
13. Connolly CG Wu J Ho TC Hoeft F Wolkowitz O Eisendrath S Resting-state functional connectivity of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex in depressed adolescents Biol Psychiatry 2013 74 898 907 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.05.036 23910949
Connolly CG, Wu J, Ho TC, Hoeft F, Wolkowitz O, Eisendrath S, et al. Resting-state functional connectivity of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex in depressed adolescents. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74:898–907.23910949
14. Schmaal L Hibar DP Sämann PG Hall GB Baune BT Jahanshad N Cortical abnormalities in adults and adolescents with major depression based on brain scans from 20 cohorts worldwide in the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder Working Group Mol Psychiatry 2017 22 900 9 10.1038/mp.2016.60 27137745
Schmaal L, Hibar DP, Sämann PG, Hall GB, Baune BT, Jahanshad N, et al. Cortical abnormalities in adults and adolescents with major depression based on brain scans from 20 cohorts worldwide in the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder Working Group. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22:900–9.27137745
15. Siddiqi SH Schaper FLWVJ Horn A Hsu J Padmanabhan JL Brodtmann A Brain stimulation and brain lesions converge on common causal circuits in neuropsychiatric disease Nat Hum Behav 2021 5 1707 16 10.1038/s41562-021-01161-1 34239076
Siddiqi SH, Schaper FLWVJ, Horn A, Hsu J, Padmanabhan JL, Brodtmann A, et al. Brain stimulation and brain lesions converge on common causal circuits in neuropsychiatric disease. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5:1707–16.34239076
16. Fox MD Buckner RL White MP Greicius MD Pascual-Leone A Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation targets for depression is related to intrinsic functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate Biol Psychiatry 2012 72 595 603 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.04.028 22658708
Fox MD, Buckner RL, White MP, Greicius MD, Pascual-Leone A. Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation targets for depression is related to intrinsic functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72:595–603.22658708
17. Weigand A Horn A Caballero R Cooke D Stern AP Taylor SF Prospective validation that subgenual connectivity predicts antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation sites Biol Psychiatry 2018 84 28 37 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.10.028 29274805
Weigand A, Horn A, Caballero R, Cooke D, Stern AP, Taylor SF, et al. Prospective validation that subgenual connectivity predicts antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation sites. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84:28–37.29274805
18. Fox MD Liu H Pascual-Leone A Identification of reproducible individualized targets for treatment of depression with TMS based on intrinsic connectivity Neuroimage 2013 66 151 60 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.082 23142067
Fox MD, Liu H, Pascual-Leone A. Identification of reproducible individualized targets for treatment of depression with TMS based on intrinsic connectivity. Neuroimage. 2013;66:151–60.23142067
19. Ning L Makris N Camprodon JA Rathi Y Limits and reproducibility of resting-state functional MRI definition of DLPFC targets for neuromodulation Brain Stimul 2019 12 129 38 10.1016/j.brs.2018.10.004 30344110
Ning L, Makris N, Camprodon JA, Rathi Y. Limits and reproducibility of resting-state functional MRI definition of DLPFC targets for neuromodulation. Brain Stimul. 2019;12:129–38.30344110
20. Cash RFH Cocchi L Lv J Wu Y Fitzgerald PB Zalesky A Personalized connectivity-guided DLPFC-TMS for depression: Advancing computational feasibility, precision and reproducibility Hum Brain Mapp 2021 42 4155 72 10.1002/hbm.25330 33544411
Cash RFH, Cocchi L, Lv J, Wu Y, Fitzgerald PB, Zalesky A. Personalized connectivity-guided DLPFC-TMS for depression: Advancing computational feasibility, precision and reproducibility. Hum Brain Mapp. 2021;42:4155–72.33544411
21. Cash RFH Weigand A Zalesky A Siddiqi SH Downar J Fitzgerald PB Using brain imaging to improve spatial targeting of transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression Biol Psychiatry 2021 90 689 700 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.05.033 32800379
Cash RFH, Weigand A, Zalesky A, Siddiqi SH, Downar J, Fitzgerald PB, et al. Using brain imaging to improve spatial targeting of transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;90:689–700.32800379
22. Siddiqi SH Weigand A Pascual-Leone A Fox MD Identification of personalized transcranial magnetic stimulation targets based on subgenual cingulate connectivity: an independent replication Biol Psychiatry 2021 90 e55 e56 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.02.015 33820629
Siddiqi SH, Weigand A, Pascual-Leone A, Fox MD. Identification of personalized transcranial magnetic stimulation targets based on subgenual cingulate connectivity: an independent replication. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;90:e55–e56.33820629
23. Baeken C Brem A-K Arns M Brunoni AR Filipčić I Ganho-Ávila A Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for depressive disorders: current knowledge and future directions Curr Opin Psychiatry 2019 32 409 15 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000533 31145145
Baeken C, Brem A-K, Arns M, Brunoni AR, Filipčić I, Ganho-Ávila A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for depressive disorders: current knowledge and future directions. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2019;32:409–15.31145145
24. Lefaucheur J-P Aleman A Baeken C Benninger DH Brunelin J Di Lazzaro V Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014–2018) Clin Neurophysiol 2020 131 474 528 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.002 31901449
Lefaucheur J-P, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Di Lazzaro V, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014–2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131:474–528.31901449
25. Lefaucheur J-P André-Obadia N Antal A Ayache SS Baeken C Benninger DH Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) Clin Neurophysiol 2014 125 2150 206 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.05.021 25034472
Lefaucheur J-P, André-Obadia N, Antal A, Ayache SS, Baeken C, Benninger DH, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125:2150–206.25034472
26. Ziemann U Siebner HR Inter-subject and inter-session variability of plasticity induction by non-invasive brain stimulation: boon or bane? Brain Stimul 2015 8 662 3 10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.409 25704341
Ziemann U, Siebner HR. Inter-subject and inter-session variability of plasticity induction by non-invasive brain stimulation: boon or bane? Brain Stimul. 2015;8:662–3.25704341
27. Turi Z Lenz M Paulus W Mittner M Vlachos A Selecting stimulation intensity in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation studies: a systematic review between 1991 and 2020 Eur J Neurosci 2021 53 3404 15 10.1111/ejn.15195 33754397
Turi Z, Lenz M, Paulus W, Mittner M, Vlachos A. Selecting stimulation intensity in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation studies: a systematic review between 1991 and 2020. Eur J Neurosci. 2021;53:3404–15.33754397
28. Fitzgerald PB Targeting repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression: do we really know what we are stimulating and how best to do it? Brain Stimul 2021 14 730 6 10.1016/j.brs.2021.04.018 33940242
Fitzgerald PB. Targeting repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression: do we really know what we are stimulating and how best to do it? Brain Stimul. 2021;14:730–6.33940242
29. Isserles M Rosenberg O Dannon P Levkovitz Y Kotler M Deutsch F Cognitive-emotional reactivation during deep transcranial magnetic stimulation over the prefrontal cortex of depressive patients affects antidepressant outcome J Affect Disord 2011 128 235 42 10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.038 20663568
Isserles M, Rosenberg O, Dannon P, Levkovitz Y, Kotler M, Deutsch F, et al. Cognitive-emotional reactivation during deep transcranial magnetic stimulation over the prefrontal cortex of depressive patients affects antidepressant outcome. J Affect Disord. 2011;128:235–42.20663568
30. Li C-T Hsieh J-C Huang H-H Chen M-H Juan C-H Tu P-C Cognition-modulated frontal activity in prediction and augmentation of antidepressant efficacy: a randomized controlled pilot study Cereb Cortex 2016 26 202 10 10.1093/cercor/bhu191 25165064
Li C-T, Hsieh J-C, Huang H-H, Chen M-H, Juan C-H, Tu P-C, et al. Cognition-modulated frontal activity in prediction and augmentation of antidepressant efficacy: a randomized controlled pilot study. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26:202–10.25165064
31. Donse L Padberg F Sack AT Rush AJ Arns M Simultaneous rTMS and psychotherapy in major depressive disorder: Clinical outcomes and predictors from a large naturalistic study Brain Stimul 2018 11 337 45 10.1016/j.brs.2017.11.004 29174304
Donse L, Padberg F, Sack AT, Rush AJ, Arns M. Simultaneous rTMS and psychotherapy in major depressive disorder: Clinical outcomes and predictors from a large naturalistic study. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:337–45.29174304
32. Caulfield KA Fleischmann HH George MS McTeague LM A transdiagnostic review of safety, efficacy, and parameter space in accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation J Psychiatr Res 2022 152 384 96 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.06.038 35816982
Caulfield KA, Fleischmann HH, George MS, McTeague LM. A transdiagnostic review of safety, efficacy, and parameter space in accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;152:384–96.35816982
33. McClintock SM Reti IM Carpenter LL McDonald WM Dubin M Taylor SF Consensus recommendations for the clinical application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression J Clin Psychiatry 2018 79 16cs10905 10.4088/JCP.16cs10905 28541649
McClintock SM, Reti IM, Carpenter LL, McDonald WM, Dubin M, Taylor SF, et al. Consensus recommendations for the clinical application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79:16cs10905.28541649
34. Bergmann TO. Brain state-dependent brain stimulation. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2108.
35. Silvanto J Muggleton NG Cowey A Walsh V Neural activation state determines behavioral susceptibility to modified theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation Eur J Neurosci 2007 26 523 8 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05682.x 17650122
Silvanto J, Muggleton NG, Cowey A, Walsh V. Neural activation state determines behavioral susceptibility to modified theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation. Eur J Neurosci. 2007;26:523–8.17650122
36. Silvanto J Muggleton N Walsh V State-dependency in brain stimulation studies of perception and cognition Trends Cogn Sci 2008 12 447 54 10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.004 18951833
Silvanto J, Muggleton N, Walsh V. State-dependency in brain stimulation studies of perception and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12:447–54.18951833
37. Pasley BN Allen EA Freeman RD State-dependent variability of neuronal responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the visual cortex Neuron 2009 62 291 303 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.012 19409273
Pasley BN, Allen EA, Freeman RD. State-dependent variability of neuronal responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the visual cortex. Neuron. 2009;62:291–303.19409273
38. Bradley C Nydam AS Dux PE Mattingley JB State-dependent effects of neural stimulation on brain function and cognition Nat Rev Neurosci 2022 23 459 75 10.1038/s41583-022-00598-1 35577959
Bradley C, Nydam AS, Dux PE, Mattingley JB. State-dependent effects of neural stimulation on brain function and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2022;23:459–75.35577959
39. Hartwigsen G, Silvanto J. Noninvasive brain stimulation: multiple effects on cognition. Neuroscientist. 2023;29:639–53.
40. Bestmann S Swayne O Blankenburg F Ruff CC Haggard P Weiskopf N Dorsal premotor cortex exerts state-dependent causal influences on activity in contralateral primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex Cereb Cortex 2008 18 1281 91 10.1093/cercor/bhm159 17965128
Bestmann S, Swayne O, Blankenburg F, Ruff CC, Haggard P, Weiskopf N, et al. Dorsal premotor cortex exerts state-dependent causal influences on activity in contralateral primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2008;18:1281–91.17965128
41. Koch G Franca M Fernandez Del Olmo M Cheeran B Milton R Alvarez Sauco M Time course of functional connectivity between dorsal premotor and contralateral motor cortex during movement selection J Neurosci 2006 26 7452 9 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1158-06.2006 16837593
Koch G, Franca M, Fernandez Del Olmo M, Cheeran B, Milton R, Alvarez Sauco M, et al. Time course of functional connectivity between dorsal premotor and contralateral motor cortex during movement selection. J Neurosci. 2006;26:7452–9.16837593
42. Ngomo S Leonard G Moffet H Mercier C Comparison of transcranial magnetic stimulation measures obtained at rest and under active conditions and their reliability J Neurosci Methods 2012 205 65 71 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.12.012 22227444
Ngomo S, Leonard G, Moffet H, Mercier C. Comparison of transcranial magnetic stimulation measures obtained at rest and under active conditions and their reliability. J Neurosci Methods. 2012;205:65–71.22227444
43. Silvanto J Cattaneo Z Nonlinear interaction between stimulation intensity and initial brain state: evidence for the facilitatory/suppressive range model of online TMS effects Neurosci Lett 2021 742 135538 10.1016/j.neulet.2020.135538 33259928
Silvanto J, Cattaneo Z. Nonlinear interaction between stimulation intensity and initial brain state: evidence for the facilitatory/suppressive range model of online TMS effects. Neurosci Lett. 2021;742:135538.33259928
44. Silvanto J Bona S Cattaneo Z Initial activation state, stimulation intensity and timing of stimulation interact in producing behavioral effects of TMS Neuroscience 2017 363 134 41 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.09.002 28893648
Silvanto J, Bona S, Cattaneo Z. Initial activation state, stimulation intensity and timing of stimulation interact in producing behavioral effects of TMS. Neuroscience. 2017;363:134–41.28893648
45. Pitcher D Walsh V Yovel G Duchaine B TMS evidence for the involvement of the right occipital face area in early face processing Curr Biol 2007 17 1568 73 10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.063 17764942
Pitcher D, Walsh V, Yovel G, Duchaine B. TMS evidence for the involvement of the right occipital face area in early face processing. Curr Biol. 2007;17:1568–73.17764942
46. Schuhmann T Schiller NO Goebel R Sack AT The temporal characteristics of functional activation in Broca’s area during overt picture naming Cortex 2009 45 1111 6 10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.013 19111289
Schuhmann T, Schiller NO, Goebel R, Sack AT. The temporal characteristics of functional activation in Broca’s area during overt picture naming. Cortex. 2009;45:1111–6.19111289
47. Schuhmann T Schiller NO Goebel R Sack AT Speaking of which: dissecting the neurocognitive network of language production in picture naming Cereb Cortex 2012 22 701 9 10.1093/cercor/bhr155 21685399
Schuhmann T, Schiller NO, Goebel R, Sack AT. Speaking of which: dissecting the neurocognitive network of language production in picture naming. Cereb Cortex. 2012;22:701–9.21685399
48. Hawco C, Armony JL, Daskalakis ZJ, Berlim MT, Chakravarty MM, Pike GB, et al. Differing time of onset of concurrent TMS-fMRI during associative memory encoding: a measure of dynamic connectivity. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:404.
49. Alexander B Laycock R Crewther DP Crewther SG An fMRI-neuronavigated chronometric TMS investigation of V5 and intraparietal cortex in motion driven attention Front Hum Neurosci 2018 11 638 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00638 29354043
Alexander B, Laycock R, Crewther DP, Crewther SG. An fMRI-neuronavigated chronometric TMS investigation of V5 and intraparietal cortex in motion driven attention. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;11:638.29354043
50. Beynel L Appelbaum LG Luber B Crowell CA Hilbig SA Lim W Effects of online repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on cognitive processing: a meta-analysis and recommendations for future studies Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2019 107 47 58 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.08.018 31473301
Beynel L, Appelbaum LG, Luber B, Crowell CA, Hilbig SA, Lim W, et al. Effects of online repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on cognitive processing: a meta-analysis and recommendations for future studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;107:47–58.31473301
51. Jodzio A Piai V Verhagen L Cameron I Indefrey P Validity of chronometric TMS for probing the time-course of word production: a modified replication Cereb Cortex 2023 33 7816 29 10.1093/cercor/bhad081 37143175
Jodzio A, Piai V, Verhagen L, Cameron I, Indefrey P. Validity of chronometric TMS for probing the time-course of word production: a modified replication. Cereb Cortex. 2023;33:7816–29.37143175
52. Bohning DE Shastri A McConnell KA Nahas Z Lorberbaum JP Roberts DR A combined TMS/fMRI study of intensity-dependent TMS over motor cortex Biol Psychiatry 1999 45 385 94 10.1016/S0006-3223(98)00368-0 10071706
Bohning DE, Shastri A, McConnell KA, Nahas Z, Lorberbaum JP, Roberts DR, et al. A combined TMS/fMRI study of intensity-dependent TMS over motor cortex. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;45:385–94.10071706
53. Bohning DE Shastri A Lomarev MP Lorberbaum JP Nahas Z George MS BOLD-fMRI response vs. transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) pulse-train length: testing for linearity J Magn Reson Imaging 2003 17 279 90 10.1002/jmri.10271 12594717
Bohning DE, Shastri A, Lomarev MP, Lorberbaum JP, Nahas Z, George MS. BOLD-fMRI response vs. transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) pulse-train length: testing for linearity. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17:279–90.12594717
54. Mizutani-Tiebel Y Tik M Chang K-Y Padberg F Soldini A Wilkinson Z Concurrent TMS-fMRI: technical challenges, developments, and overview of previous studies Front Psychiatry 2022 13 825205 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.825205 35530029
Mizutani-Tiebel Y, Tik M, Chang K-Y, Padberg F, Soldini A, Wilkinson Z, et al. Concurrent TMS-fMRI: technical challenges, developments, and overview of previous studies. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:825205.35530029
55. Ricci R, Salatino A, Li X, Funk A, Logan S, Mu Q, et al. Imaging the neural mechanisms of TMS neglect-like bias in healthy volunteers with the interleaved TMS/fMRI technique: preliminary evidence. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:326.
56. Feredoes E Heinen K Weiskopf N Ruff C Driver J Causal evidence for frontal involvement in memory target maintenance by posterior brain areas during distracter interference of visual working memory Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011 108 17510 5 10.1073/pnas.1106439108 21987824
Feredoes E, Heinen K, Weiskopf N, Ruff C, Driver J. Causal evidence for frontal involvement in memory target maintenance by posterior brain areas during distracter interference of visual working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:17510–5.21987824
57. Blankenburg F Ruff CC Bestmann S Bjoertomt O Josephs O Deichmann R Studying the role of human parietal cortex in visuospatial attention with concurrent TMS-fMRI Cereb Cortex 2010 20 2702 11 10.1093/cercor/bhq015 20176690
Blankenburg F, Ruff CC, Bestmann S, Bjoertomt O, Josephs O, Deichmann R, et al. Studying the role of human parietal cortex in visuospatial attention with concurrent TMS-fMRI. Cereb Cortex. 2010;20:2702–11.20176690
58. Heinen K Ruff CC Bjoertomt O Schenkluhn B Bestmann S Blankenburg F Concurrent TMS-fMRI reveals dynamic interhemispheric influences of the right parietal cortex during exogenously cued visuospatial attention Eur J Neurosci 2011 33 991 1000 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07580.x 21324004
Heinen K, Ruff CC, Bjoertomt O, Schenkluhn B, Bestmann S, Blankenburg F, et al. Concurrent TMS-fMRI reveals dynamic interhemispheric influences of the right parietal cortex during exogenously cued visuospatial attention. Eur J Neurosci. 2011;33:991–1000.21324004
59. Leitão J Thielscher A Werner S Pohmann R Noppeney U Effects of parietal TMS on visual and auditory processing at the primary cortical level – a concurrent TMS-fMRI study Cereb Cortex 2013 23 873 84 10.1093/cercor/bhs078 22490546
Leitão J, Thielscher A, Werner S, Pohmann R, Noppeney U. Effects of parietal TMS on visual and auditory processing at the primary cortical level – a concurrent TMS-fMRI study. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23:873–84.22490546
60. Jackson JB Feredoes E Rich AN Lindner M Woolgar A Concurrent neuroimaging and neurostimulation reveals a causal role for dlPFC in coding of task-relevant information Commun Biol 2021 4 1 16 10.1038/s42003-021-02109-x 33398033
Jackson JB, Feredoes E, Rich AN, Lindner M, Woolgar A. Concurrent neuroimaging and neurostimulation reveals a causal role for dlPFC in coding of task-relevant information. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1–16.33398033
61. Raffin E, Salamanca-Giron RF, Huxlin KR, Reynaud O, Mattera L, Martuzzi R, et al. Concurrent TMS-fMRI to determine adaptive brain changes to virtual lesions interfering with visual processing. bioRxiv. 2022. 10.1101/2022.03.03.482512.
62. Webler RD Fox J McTeague LM Burton PC Dowdle L Short EB DLPFC stimulation alters working memory related activations and performance: an interleaved TMS-fMRI study Brain Stimul 2022 15 823 32 10.1016/j.brs.2022.05.014 35644517
Webler RD, Fox J, McTeague LM, Burton PC, Dowdle L, Short EB, et al. DLPFC stimulation alters working memory related activations and performance: an interleaved TMS-fMRI study. Brain Stimul. 2022;15:823–32.35644517
63. Hermiller MS Chen YF Parrish TB Voss JL Evidence for immediate enhancement of hippocampal memory encoding by network-targeted theta-burst stimulation during concurrent fMRI J Neurosci 2020 40 7155 68 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0486-20.2020 32817326
Hermiller MS, Chen YF, Parrish TB, Voss JL. Evidence for immediate enhancement of hippocampal memory encoding by network-targeted theta-burst stimulation during concurrent fMRI. J Neurosci. 2020;40:7155–68.32817326
64. Webler RD Hamady C Molnar C Johnson K Bonilha L Anderson BS Decreased interhemispheric connectivity and increased cortical excitability in unmedicated schizophrenia: a prefrontal interleaved TMS fMRI study Brain Stimul 2020 13 1467 75 10.1016/j.brs.2020.06.017 32585355
Webler RD, Hamady C, Molnar C, Johnson K, Bonilha L, Anderson BS, et al. Decreased interhemispheric connectivity and increased cortical excitability in unmedicated schizophrenia: a prefrontal interleaved TMS fMRI study. Brain Stimul. 2020;13:1467–75.32585355
65. Pantazatos SP, Mclntosh JR, Saber GT, Sun X, Doose J, Faller J, et al. The timing of transcranial magnetic stimulation relative to the phase of prefrontal alpha EEG modulates downstream target engagement. Brain Stimul. 2023;16:830–9.
66. Williams LM Precision psychiatry: a neural circuit taxonomy for depression and anxiety Lancet Psychiatry 2016 3 472 80 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00579-9 27150382
Williams LM. Precision psychiatry: a neural circuit taxonomy for depression and anxiety. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:472–80.27150382
67. Gevins A Cutillo B Spatiotemporal dynamics of component processes in human working memory Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993 87 128 43 10.1016/0013-4694(93)90119-G 7691540
Gevins A, Cutillo B. Spatiotemporal dynamics of component processes in human working memory. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;87:128–43.7691540
68. Owen AM McMillan KM Laird AR Bullmore E N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies Hum Brain Mapp 2005 25 46 59 10.1002/hbm.20131 15846822
Owen AM, McMillan KM, Laird AR, Bullmore E. N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25:46–59.15846822
69. Barbey AK Koenigs M Grafman J Dorsolateral prefrontal contributions to human working memory Cortex 2013 49 1195 205 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.05.022 22789779
Barbey AK, Koenigs M, Grafman J. Dorsolateral prefrontal contributions to human working memory. Cortex. 2013;49:1195–205.22789779
70. Nikolin S Tan YY Schwaab A Moffa A Loo CK Martin D An investigation of working memory deficits in depression using the n-back task: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Affect Disord 2021 284 1 8 10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.084 33581489
Nikolin S, Tan YY, Schwaab A, Moffa A, Loo CK, Martin D. An investigation of working memory deficits in depression using the n-back task: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;284:1–8.33581489
71. Rose EJ Ebmeier KP Pattern of impaired working memory during major depression J Affect Disord 2006 90 149 61 10.1016/j.jad.2005.11.003 16364451
Rose EJ, Ebmeier KP. Pattern of impaired working memory during major depression. J Affect Disord. 2006;90:149–61.16364451
72. Vasileiadi M, Woletz M, Linhardt D, Grosshagauer S, Tik M, Windischberger C. Improved brain stimulation targeting by optimising image acquisition parameters. NeuroImage. 2023;276:120175.
73. Navarro de Lara LI Windischberger C Kuehne A Woletz M Sieg J Bestmann S A novel coil array for combined TMS/fMRI experiments at 3 T Magn Reson Med 2015 74 1492 501 10.1002/mrm.25535 25421603
Navarro de Lara LI, Windischberger C, Kuehne A, Woletz M, Sieg J, Bestmann S, et al. A novel coil array for combined TMS/fMRI experiments at 3 T. Magn Reson Med. 2015;74:1492–501.25421603
74. Navarro de Lara LI Tik M Woletz M Frass-Kriegl R Moser E Laistler E High-sensitivity TMS/fMRI of the human motor cortex using a dedicated multichannel MR coil NeuroImage 2017 150 262 9 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.062 28254457
Navarro de Lara LI, Tik M, Woletz M, Frass-Kriegl R, Moser E, Laistler E, et al. High-sensitivity TMS/fMRI of the human motor cortex using a dedicated multichannel MR coil. NeuroImage. 2017;150:262–9.28254457
75. Biswal B Yetkin FZ Haughton VM Hyde JS Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI Magn Reson Med 1995 34 537 41 10.1002/mrm.1910340409 8524021
Biswal B, Yetkin FZ, Haughton VM, Hyde JS. Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1995;34:537–41.8524021
76. Schutter DJLG van Honk J A standardized motor threshold estimation procedure for transcranial magnetic stimulation research J ECT 2006 22 176 10.1097/01.yct.0000235924.60364.27 16957532
Schutter DJLG, van Honk J. A standardized motor threshold estimation procedure for transcranial magnetic stimulation research. J ECT. 2006;22:176.16957532
77. Chen Y-N Mitra S Schlaghecken F Sub-processes of working memory in the N-back task: An investigation using ERPs Clin Neurophysiol 2008 119 1546 59 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.03.003 18448388
Chen Y-N, Mitra S, Schlaghecken F. Sub-processes of working memory in the N-back task: An investigation using ERPs. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119:1546–59.18448388
78. Liesefeld HR, Janczyk M. Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs(?). Behav Res. 2019;51:40–60.
79. Avants BB Tustison NJ Song G Cook PA Klein A Gee JC A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration NeuroImage 2011 54 2033 44 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.025 20851191
Avants BB, Tustison NJ, Song G, Cook PA, Klein A, Gee JC. A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration. NeuroImage. 2011;54:2033–44.20851191
80. Power JD Barnes KA Snyder AZ Schlaggar BL Petersen SE Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion Neuroimage 2012 59 2142 54 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018 22019881
Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage. 2012;59:2142–54.22019881
81. Ernst J Hock A Henning A Seifritz E Boeker H Grimm S Increased pregenual anterior cingulate glucose and lactate concentrations in major depressive disorder Mol Psychiatry 2017 22 113 9 10.1038/mp.2016.73 27184123
Ernst J, Hock A, Henning A, Seifritz E, Boeker H, Grimm S. Increased pregenual anterior cingulate glucose and lactate concentrations in major depressive disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22:113–9.27184123
82. Zhou M Hu X Lu L Zhang L Chen L Gong Q Intrinsic cerebral activity at resting state in adults with major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis Prog Neuro Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2017 75 157 64 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.02.001
Zhou M, Hu X, Lu L, Zhang L, Chen L, Gong Q, et al. Intrinsic cerebral activity at resting state in adults with major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis. Prog Neuro Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2017;75:157–64.
83. Thielscher A, Antunes A, Saturnino GB Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: a useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? In: 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2015. p. 222–5.
84. Drakaki M Mathiesen C Siebner HR Madsen K Thielscher A Database of 25 validated coil models for electric field simulations for TMS Brain Stimul 2022 15 697 706 10.1016/j.brs.2022.04.017 35490970
Drakaki M, Mathiesen C, Siebner HR, Madsen K, Thielscher A. Database of 25 validated coil models for electric field simulations for TMS. Brain Stimul. 2022;15:697–706.35490970
85. Vink JJT Mandija S Petrov PI van den Berg CAT Sommer IEC Neggers SFW A novel concurrent TMS-fMRI method to reveal propagation patterns of prefrontal magnetic brain stimulation Hum Brain Mapp 2018 39 4580 92 10.1002/hbm.24307 30156743
Vink JJT, Mandija S, Petrov PI, van den Berg CAT, Sommer IEC, Neggers SFW. A novel concurrent TMS-fMRI method to reveal propagation patterns of prefrontal magnetic brain stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018;39:4580–92.30156743
86. Tik M Woletz M Schuler A-L Vasileiadi M Cash RFH Zalesky A Acute TMS/fMRI response explains offline TMS network effects – An interleaved TMS-fMRI study NeuroImage 2023 267 119833 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119833 36572133
Tik M, Woletz M, Schuler A-L, Vasileiadi M, Cash RFH, Zalesky A, et al. Acute TMS/fMRI response explains offline TMS network effects – An interleaved TMS-fMRI study. NeuroImage. 2023;267:119833.36572133
87. Rafiei F Rahnev D TMS does not increase BOLD activity at the site of stimulation: a review of all concurrent TMS-fMRI studies eNeuro 2022 9 ENEURO.0163-22.2022 10.1523/ENEURO.0163-22.2022 35981879
Rafiei F, Rahnev D. TMS does not increase BOLD activity at the site of stimulation: a review of all concurrent TMS-fMRI studies. eNeuro. 2022;9:ENEURO.0163-22.2022.35981879
88. Esposito F Aragri A Piccoli T Tedeschi G Goebel R Di Salle F Distributed analysis of simultaneous EEG-fMRI time-series: modeling and interpretation issues Magn Reson Imaging 2009 27 1120 30 10.1016/j.mri.2009.01.007 19261423
Esposito F, Aragri A, Piccoli T, Tedeschi G, Goebel R, Di Salle F. Distributed analysis of simultaneous EEG-fMRI time-series: modeling and interpretation issues. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27:1120–30.19261423
89. Costers L Van Schependom J Laton J Baijot J Sjøgård M Wens V Spatiotemporal and spectral dynamics of multi-item working memory as revealed by the n-back task using MEG Hum Brain Mapp 2020 41 2431 46 10.1002/hbm.24955 32180307
Costers L, Van Schependom J, Laton J, Baijot J, Sjøgård M, Wens V, et al. Spatiotemporal and spectral dynamics of multi-item working memory as revealed by the n-back task using MEG. Hum Brain Mapp. 2020;41:2431–46.32180307
90. Terao Y Ugawa Y Suzuki M Sakai K Hanajima R Gemba-Shimizu K Shortening of simple reaction time by peripheral electrical and submotor-threshold magnetic cortical stimulation Exp Brain Res 1997 115 541 5 10.1007/PL00005724 9262209
Terao Y, Ugawa Y, Suzuki M, Sakai K, Hanajima R, Gemba-Shimizu K, et al. Shortening of simple reaction time by peripheral electrical and submotor-threshold magnetic cortical stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 1997;115:541–5.9262209
91. Luber B Kinnunen LH Rakitin BC Ellsasser R Stern Y Lisanby SH Facilitation of performance in a working memory task with rTMS stimulation of the precuneus: frequency- and time-dependent effects Brain Res 2007 1128 120 9 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.011 17113573
Luber B, Kinnunen LH, Rakitin BC, Ellsasser R, Stern Y, Lisanby SH. Facilitation of performance in a working memory task with rTMS stimulation of the precuneus: frequency- and time-dependent effects. Brain Res. 2007;1128:120–9.17113573
92. Beynel L Davis SW Crowell CA Hilbig SA Lim W Nguyen D Online repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation during working memory in younger and older adults: a randomized within-subject comparison PLoS ONE 2019 14 e0213707 10.1371/journal.pone.0213707 30901345
Beynel L, Davis SW, Crowell CA, Hilbig SA, Lim W, Nguyen D, et al. Online repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation during working memory in younger and older adults: a randomized within-subject comparison. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0213707.30901345
93. Beynel L, Dannhauer M, Palmer H, Hilbig S, Crowell C, Wang J, et al. Network‐based rTMS to modulate working memory: The difficult choice of effective parameters for online interventions. Brain Behav. 2021;11:e2361.
94. Sack AT Kohler A Bestmann S Linden DEJ Dechent P Goebel R Imaging the brain activity changes underlying impaired visuospatial judgments: simultaneous fMRI, TMS, and behavioral studies Cereb Cortex 2007 17 2841 52 10.1093/cercor/bhm013 17337745
Sack AT, Kohler A, Bestmann S, Linden DEJ, Dechent P, Goebel R, et al. Imaging the brain activity changes underlying impaired visuospatial judgments: simultaneous fMRI, TMS, and behavioral studies. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:2841–52.17337745
95. Bestmann S Feredoes E Combined neurostimulation and neuroimaging in cognitive neuroscience: past, present, and future Ann N Y Acad Sci 2013 1296 11 30 10.1111/nyas.12110 23631540
Bestmann S, Feredoes E. Combined neurostimulation and neuroimaging in cognitive neuroscience: past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013;1296:11–30.23631540
96. Bergmann TO Hartwigsen G Inferring causality from noninvasive brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience J Cogn Neurosci 2021 33 195 225 10.1162/jocn_a_01591 32530381
Bergmann TO, Hartwigsen G. Inferring causality from noninvasive brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience. J Cogn Neurosci. 2021;33:195–225.32530381
97. Oathes DJ Zimmerman JP Duprat R Japp SS Scully M Rosenberg BM Resting fMRI-guided TMS results in subcortical and brain network modulation indexed by interleaved TMS/fMRI Exp Brain Res 2021 239 1165 78 10.1007/s00221-021-06036-5 33560448
Oathes DJ, Zimmerman JP, Duprat R, Japp SS, Scully M, Rosenberg BM, et al. Resting fMRI-guided TMS results in subcortical and brain network modulation indexed by interleaved TMS/fMRI. Exp Brain Res. 2021;239:1165–78.33560448
98. Oathes DJ Duprat RJ-P Reber J Liang X Scully M Long H Non-invasively targeting, probing and modulating a deep brain circuit for depression alleviation Nat Ment Health 2023 1 1033 42 10.1038/s44220-023-00165-2
Oathes DJ, Duprat RJ-P, Reber J, Liang X, Scully M, Long H, et al. Non-invasively targeting, probing and modulating a deep brain circuit for depression alleviation. Nat Ment Health. 2023;1:1033–42.
99. Lynch CJ, Elbau I, Ng T, Ayaz A, Zhu S, Manfredi N, et al. Expansion of a frontostriatal salience network in individuals with depression. bioRxiv. 2023. 10.1101/2023.08.09.551651.
100. Raij TT Komulainen E Aydogan DB Pamilo S Isometsä E Raij T Depression core network-based individualized targeting for transcranial magnetic stimulation Brain Stimul 2023 16 619 27 10.1016/j.brs.2023.03.005 36931462
Raij TT, Komulainen E, Aydogan DB, Pamilo S, Isometsä E, Raij T. Depression core network-based individualized targeting for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2023;16:619–27.36931462
101. Duecker F Sack AT Rethinking the role of sham TMS Front Psychol 2015 6 210 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00210 25767458
Duecker F, Sack AT. Rethinking the role of sham TMS. Front Psychol. 2015;6:210.25767458
102. Rolls ET Huang C-C Lin C-P Feng J Joliot M Automated anatomical labelling atlas 3 NeuroImage 2020 206 116189 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116189 31521825
Rolls ET, Huang C-C, Lin C-P, Feng J, Joliot M. Automated anatomical labelling atlas 3. NeuroImage. 2020;206:116189.31521825
