ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Frontoparietal control-default mode connectivity predicts TMS effects on cognitive control.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a promising tool to probe and enhance cognitive control, yet effects are often inconsistent across individuals. These inconsistencies may arise from individual differences in Lateral Frontoparietal (Control) Network (L-FPN) and Medial Frontoparietal (Default) Network (M-FPN) interactions, essential for suppressing internal distraction and facilitating cognitive control. We tested whether baseline connectivity between the L-FPN and M-FPN moderates TMS outcomes in cognitive control tasks. We used the generalized drift rate as a task-general behavioral index of cognitive control, as it overcomes the reliability and interpretability limitations of standard difference measures. Participants completed inhibition (Stroop), working memory (n-back), and flexibility (Navon) tasks before and after intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) to the L-FPN, dorsal frontoparietal (attention) network (D-FPN), or cranial vertex. Stimulation targets were defined using individualized resting-state parcellations to maximize precision. We found that baseline connectivity moderated stimulation outcomes: individuals with more integrated L-FPN/M-FPN networks benefited most from L-FPN stimulation, whereas those with more segregated networks showed greater improvements from D-FPN stimulation. Notably, stimulation of a single site did not uniformly enhance performance, underscoring the importance of individual network profiles. These findings highlight L-FPN/M-FPN interactions as a basis for individualized TMS interventions and the utility of combining precise network mapping with robust behavioral modeling to optimize neuromodulation interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.