Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
The flowchart and diagrammatic representation of the timeline for the study. Of the 71 healthy participants who completed screening, 60 subjects were assigned to HF-rTMS (n = 20), iTBS (n = 20), or sham (n = 20) groups. Three participates do not meet the inclusion criteria, eight participants decline take part in the study.
- Figure 2.
Score changes in the 2-back, 3-back for HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham. A, The ACC of 3-back shows a significant interaction effect after HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham stimulation. The HF-rTMS and iTBS group shows a significant improvement after stimulation, but not in the sham group. Compare with sham group the enhancement of iTBS and HF-rTMS was significant. B, The RT of 3-back shows no interaction effect after HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham stimulation. The iTBS group shows a significant improvement after stimulation, but not the HF-rTMS. Compare with sham group the enhancement of iTBS was not significant. C, The ACC of 2-back shows no interaction effect after HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham stimulation. Both the HF-rTMS and iTBS and sham groups show an improvement after stimulation, but compared with the sham group, the enhancement of iTBS and HF-rTMS was not significant. D, The RT of 2-back shows no interaction effect after HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham stimulation. Both the HF-rTMS and iTBS and sham groups show an improvement after stimulation, but compared with the sham group, the enhancement of iTBS and HF-rTMS was not significant; ACC: Accuracy; RT: Reaction time; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; ns: p > 0.05.
- Figure 3.
Score changes in WCST for HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham. A–C, The TR, TC, and TE of WCST shows no significant interaction effect after HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham stimulation. D, The perseverative errors percentage of WCST shows a significant interaction effect after HF-rTMS, iTBS, and sham stimulation. The iTBS group shows a significant improvement after stimulation, but not the HF-rTMS. Compared with the sham group, the enhancement of iTBS was significant, but not the HF-rTMS; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; ns: p > 0.05.
- Figure 4.
Comparison of normalized change from baseline in N-back and WCST after sham, HF-rTMS, and iTBS stimulation. (A) The improvement of 3-back accuracy by iTBS was significantly higher than that by HF-rTMS and sham. (B) There was no difference in the effects of iTBS, HF-rTMS, and sham on 3-back RT. (C) The improvement of perseverative errors percentage by iTBS was significantly higher than that by HF-rTMS and sham, but there was no difference in HF-rTMS and sham; *p < 0.05.
Tables
Variable Sham 20 Hz iTBS F/χ2 p value N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 df = 2,59 Age (year) 23.50 (2.99)* 23.85 (2.79)* 23.80 (3.42)* 0.48* 0.785 Sex (male/female) 10/10 11/9 13/7 0.95△ 0.622 Education duration (year) 17.40 (1.89)* 17.10 (1.69)* 18.00 (2.03)* 1.07* 0.587 MoCA 29.6 (0.38)* 29.45 (0.85)* 29.55 (0.47)* 0.22* 0.895 CAVLT-immediate 12.65 (1.18) 12.82 (0.98) 12.96 (0.93) 0.45 0.641 CAVLT-delay 14.75 (0.31)* 14.65 (0.33)* 14.75 (0.31)* 0.65* 0.721 CAVLT-recognition 14.85 (0.21)* 14.85 (0.21)* 14.85 (0.21)* 0.00* 1.000 HAMA 1.90 (1.80) 1.90 (1.62) 2.10 (1.65) 0.09 0.911 HAMD 1.30 (1.46)* 1.45 (1.28) 1.65 (1.58)* 0.62* 0.732 SCWT-dot (s) 12.31 (1.96) 12.40 (1.91) 12.37 (1.90) 0.01 0.988 SCWT-word (s) 14.76 (2.18) 14.84 (2.08) 14.77 (2.62) 0.01 0.993 SCWT-color word (s) 23.69 (5.43) 23.72 (5.13) 22.57 (4.48) 0.34 0.714 DST-Forward 9.45 (1.20)* 9.40 (1.20)* 9.65 (1.18) 0.59* 0.745 DST-Backward 7.15 (1.05)* 7.10 (1.08)* 7.30 (1.09)* 0.39* 0.821 CTT-A (s) 32.79 (9.31) 34.72 (11.14) 31.05 (9.09) 0.69 0.507 CTT-B (s) 65.98 (11.99) 65.75 (14.01) 66.49 (14.32) 0.02 0.984 VFT-sematic 20.13 (4.14) 20.10 (4.15) 20.85 (2.73) 0.26 0.772 VFT-Letter 9.50 (2.65) 9.00 (2.25) 9.15 (2.55)* 0.40* 0.819 Values in parentheses indicate SD; *, performed as median and interquartile range and Kruskal–Wallis Test; △, χ2 test.
MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; HAMA, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; CAVLT, Chinese version of the Auditory Verbal Learning Test; DST, Digital Span Test; SCWT, Stroop Color Word Test; CTT, Color Trail Test; VFT, Verbal Fluency Test.
Variable Sham 20 Hz iTBS F/χ2 p value N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 df = 2,59 ACC-back 0 (%) 98.88 (1.63)* 98.88 (1.58)* 98.88 (1.68)* 0.03* 0.985 ACC-back 1 (%) 87.30 (8.44) 89.41 (7.47) 87.70 (9.07)* 0.56* 0.754 ACC-back 2 (%) 64.03 (17.97) 60.83 (18.49) 60.35 (17.98) 0.24 0.785 ACC-back 3 (%) 54.26 (24.23) 53.16 (21.78) 43.60 (20.22) 1.40 0.254 RT-back 0 (ms) 481.67 (65.26) 474.43 (51.76) 474.73 (52.38) 0.10 0.901 RT-back 1 (ms) 413.86 (133.64) 398.77 (131.1) 397.77 (112.21) 0.10 0.903 RT-back 2 (ms) 460.11 (187.06) 472.75 (185.08) 450.45 (162.66) 0.08 0.925 RT-back 3 (ms) 465.97 (150.40) 460.38 (180.65) 478.88 (179.08) 0.06 0.940 Total Correct 127.00 (17.00)* 128.00 (17.00)* 122.00 (21.50)* 1.75* 0.417 Total Correct 94.00 (9.75)* 94.00 (9.75)* 97.00 (9.75)* 0.07* 0.968 Total Errors 23.00 (22.00)* 24.00 (22.00)* 19.00 (19.50)* 1.68* 0.431 Perseverative errors percentage 10.63 (3.15)* 10.94 (2.95)* 9.02 (2.95)* 0.99* 0.611 Values in parentheses indicate SD; *, performed as median and interquartile range and Kruskal–Wallis test; △, χ2 test. ACC: Accuracy; RT: Reaction time.
In this issue
