. 2023 Apr 19;228(3-4):717–749. doi: 10.1007/s00429-023-02634-x

Table 2.

Summary of reviewed studies and indication of results

Reference	Sample size, sex ratio (M:F), age (years)	Study design	TBS protocol, parameters^a, Stimulation Intensity	Method for locating target site [active control]	Outcome Protocol [Time to return to scanner] Paradigm Summary of results
TBS to the motor cortex
Agnew et al. (2018)	N = 16 23–49 years ^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS; Total pulses: 300 40% MSO	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (R) ventral premotor cortex (MNI = 54, − 2, 44) – [vertex]: middle of nasion and inion	Task (auditory emotion)-based fMRI [fMRI 5 min post cTBS] *BOLD* No effects at target site or contralateral homologue ↑ at a (R) post- and pre-central gyri ↑ inferior frontal gyrus (pars opercularis and triangularis), (L) supplementary motor area, cerebellar vermis, (R) parahippocampal gyrus, bilateral inferior parietal lobe (angular gyrus), bilateral superior and right middle frontal gyri and (R) postcentral gyrus ↓ (L) hippocampus, (R) middle cingulate cortex, (R) precuneus, (L) supramarginal gyrus, (R) supplementary motor area, (R) inferior frontal gyrus (pars triangularis) and (R) rolandic operculum
Annak et al. (2019)	N = 16 (6:10) 23.8 ± 2.3	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (functional activation): – (L) primary motor cortex; FDI representation – (L) secondary somatosensory cortex	Task (nociceptive stimulation; chemosensory pain model)-based fMRI [time to return to scanner unclear/not reported] *BOLD* (L) primary motor cortex: ↓ BOLD at rolandic operculum, insula and postcentral gyrus Strength of relationship between BOLD signal and stimulus strength reduced post cTBS to (L) primary motor cortex No effects of stimulation to (L) secondary somatosensory cortex
Cárdenas-Morales et al. (2011)	N = 17 (17:0) 27.3 ± 2.6	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	iTBS 90% AMT	Hot-spot – (L) primary motor cortex; APB representation	Task (choice reaction)-based and resting-state fMRI [immediate] *BOLD and CBF* Task: ↓ BOLD at (L) primary motor cortex, and (R) primary motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, rostral parts of (R) superior and inferior parietal gyrus, and the (R) premotor area No effects at rest
Cocchi et al. (2015)	N = 23 (11:12) 23.0 ± 3.0	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS iTBS 80% AMT	Hot-spot – (R) primary motor cortex; APB	Resting-state fMRI [5 min] *Functional Connectivity* cTBS: ↓ participation index (PI) and ↑ within module degree (WMD) at motor and somatosensory cortices, ↑ PI and ↓ WMD at insula, striatum, and (L) temporal cortex iTBS: No effects of iTBS on PI or WMD
Hu et al. (2017)	N = 36 (17:19) 20–34 years^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS 70% RMT	Hot-Spot – (R) primary motor cortex; FDI	Resting-state fMRI [30 min] Functional connectivity Bilaterally ↓ ALFF, fALFF and ReHO along the postcentral gyrus at sites controlling the (L) face and limbs and (L) and (R) trunk
Ji et al. (2017)	N = 19 (6:13) 22.7 ± 2.1	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS (3 runs, 15 min apart) 70% RMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) supplementary motor area (MNI = − 6, − 6, 77)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *BOLD and Functional Connectivity* No local effects ↓ rsFC at the (L) inferior frontal gyrus, and (L) supplementary motor area/middle cingulate cortex, maintained for 6.1 min in the (L) inferior frontal gyrus and 6.6 min in the (L) supplementary motor area/middle cingulate cortex
Ji et al. (2020)	Primary study: N = 33 (17:16) Secondary (validation) study: N = (11:5) 20.4 ± 0.51	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham controlled (validation study)	cTBS: 3 runs, 15 min apart 70% RMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) (L) supplementary motor area (MNI = − 6, − 6, 77)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* Primary study: ↓ rsFC at the bilateral cerebellum immediately post stimulation (T2). ↑ rsFC at the paracentral gyrus at T3 (immediately post T2) Validation study: ↑ rsFC at the paracentral gyrus at T3 (immediately post T2)
Matusa et al. (2022)	N = 25 27–43 years	Pre-test – posttest, within subjects	cTBS 80% AMT	Hot-spot – (L) primary motor cortex; APB	Resting-state fMRI [15 min] *Network activity* No difference in resting state network activity per-post cTBS
Nettekoven et al. (2014)	N = 16 (7:9) 27.0 ± 3.0	Pretest–posttest, sham-controlled, within-subjects, repeated measured (time-points)	iTBS: 3 runs, 15 min apart 70% RMT	Hot-spot – (L) primary motor cortex; APB	Resting-state fMRI [~ 3 min] Functional connectivity ↑ rsFC between primary motor cortex and various sensorimotor regions, with local maxima consistently at bilateral supplementary motor area and dorsal premotor cortex (superior frontal sulcus) across blocks, and less consistently in parts of the somatosensory and superior parietal cortices. No effects in a control (visual) network Dose dependency: primary motor cortex-dorsal premotor cortex connectivity was significantly higher after iTBS₁₈₀₀ compared with iTBS₆₀₀ and iTBS₁₂₀₀, but not between iTBS₆₀₀ and iTBS₁₂₀₀, and sham Supplementary control experiment: iTBS₁₈₀₀ = ↑rsFC between primary motor cortex and bilateral supplementary motor area, dorsal premotor cortex, and parts of the somatosensory and superior parietal cortex when compared to iTBS₆₀₀ followed by 2 sham runs, supporting the notion of a cumulative (dosage) effect, rather than delayed effect of a single dose of iTBS
Nettekoven et al. (2015)	N = 16 (7:9) 27.0 ± 3.0	Pretest–posttest, sham-controlled, within-subjects, repeated measures (time-points)	iTBS: 3 runs, 15 min apart 70% RMT	Hot-spot – (L) primary motor cortex; APB	Resting-state fMRI [~ 3 min] *Functional connectivity* In responders, ↑ FC between primary motor cortex and bilateral supplementary motor area and dorsal premotor cortex, as well as the contralateral primary motor cortex rsFC ↑ with each dose of iTBS in responder group, but not for non-responders. i.e. multiple doses of iTBS did not change responsiveness to iTBS (non-responders did not become responders)
Orosz et al. (2012)	N = 12 (7:5) 23.9 ± 2.1	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% RMT	Hot-spot – (R) primary motor cortex; small hand muscles	Task (finger tapping)-based and resting-state fMRI [immediate] *CBF* CBF ↑ at (R) primary motor cortex during finger tapping (left hand) compared to rest CBF ↑ at (R) primary motor cortex, and more voxels were implicated compared to baseline
Ruan et al. (2017)	N = 60 (30:30) 23.5 ± 4.4	Pretest–posttest, within- and between-subjects	iTBS cTBS cTBS_left + iTBS_right	– (L) primary motor cortex; suprahyoid muscle	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* cTBS ↓ ALFF in anterior cingulate gyrus iTBS ↑ ALFF to bilateral precuneus cTBS + iTBS ↓ ALFF in brainstem and ↑ ALFF in middle cingulate cortex and (L) precentral gyrus
Ruan et al. (2019)	N = 60 (30:30) 23.5 ± 4.4	Pretest–posttest, within- and between- subjects	iTBS cTBS cTBS_left + iTBS_right	– (L) primary motor cortex; suprahyoid muscle	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* cTBS ↑ ReHo in the (R) lingual gyrus and (R) precuneus, and ↓ ReHo in the posterior cingulate gyrus iTBS ↑ ReHo in the bilateral precentral gyrus, (L) postcentral gyrus, and cuneus, and ↓ ReHo in the (L) cerebellum, brainstem, (L) temporal gyrus, (R) insula, and (L) middle frontal gyrus cTBS + iTBS ↑ ReHo in the precuneus and ↓ ReHo in the (R) cerebellum posterior lobe, (L) cerebellum anterior lobe, and (R) inferior frontal gyrus
Steel et al. (2016)	N = 22 (10:12) 26.0 ± 4.2	Within subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Hot-spot – (L) primary motor cortex; FDI	Task (motor procedural learning)- based fMRI [330 ± 80 s for the TBS and 450 ± 28 s for sham] *BOLD and functional connectivity* No effects of cTBS on BOLD response at any brain region ↓ global connectivity at (L) primary visual cortex and dorsal premotor area ↑ global connectivity at middle cingulate gyrus, dorsal anterior cingulate, and superior frontal gyrus ↓ FC between (L) inferior occipital gyrus and dorsal premotor area, supplementary motor area, and primary motor cortex ↓ FC between superior occipital gyrus and primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area ↑ FC between the middle temporal and dorsal anterior cingulate ↑ FC between the superior and inferior frontal gyri
Van Nuenun et al. (2012)	N = 11 (11:0) 27.0 ± 6.5	Within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Measurement – (L) dorsal premotor cortex (2 cm anterior and 1 cm medial to hot-spot [FDI])	Task (cued grip and lift)-based fMRI [15 min] BOLD cTBS did not modulate preparatory activity at (L) dorsal premotor cortex
Welniarz et al. (2019)	N = 22^c	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 90% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical) – (R) supplementary motor area	Task (delayed response cued-movement go-no-go)-based fMRI [within 30 min of TBS] *BOLD and Functional Connectivity* cTBS did not affect BOLD Bimanual preparation: FC between (L) supplementary motor area and primary motor cortex was negative before cTBS and positive afterward FC between (L) and (R) supplementary motor area was positive pre cTBS and reinforced post (L) and (R) primary motor cortex FC was positive post cTBS
Zhang et al. (2020)	N = 40 (20:20) 23.7 ± 2.6 cTBS: n = 20 (10:10) 23.6 ± 2.2 iTBS: n = 20 (10:10) 23.0 ± 2.7	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects	cTBS iTBS 80% AMT	Hot-spot – (L) primary motor cortex; suprahyoid muscle	Resting-state fMRI [within 30 min] *Functional Connectivity* cTBS: ↑ degree centrality in (L) inferior frontal gyrus compared to baseline iTBS: ↓ degree centrality in the (L) cerebellum and medial frontal gyrus ↑ degree centrality in the (R) superior temporal gyrus, superior frontal gyrus, and postcentral gyrus, as well as the (L) paracentral lobule compared to baseline
TBS to the prefrontal cortex
Alkhasli et al. (2019)	N = 16 (8:8) 27.6 ± 7.0	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	iTBS 90% RMT 120% RMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: (Tal = − 45, 45, 35)	Resting-state fMRI [7 min] *Functional Connectivity* Sub threshold stimulation: ↑ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the striatum, (L) and (R) caudate Supra-threshold stimulation: ↑ rsFC between (L) caudate and the (L) and (R) amygdala
Anderkova et al. (2018)	N = 20 (7:13) 25.2 ± 2.7	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS iTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (R) inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = 46, 14, 32) – (L) superior parietal lobule (MNI = − 24, − 68, 48)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional connectivity* No reported effects of (R) inferior frontal gyrus stimulation
Gratton, et al. (2013)	N = 27 (16:11) 18–31 years ^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical and functional) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum – [(L) primary somatosensory cortex]	Resting-state fMRI [~ 10 min] *BOLD and Functional Connectivity* Non-significant trend towards increased rsFC of the fronto-parietal network following TBS to both the (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum compared to active control. Strongest ~ 20 min post TBS No whole brain effects immediately following TBS to either test site. Widespread frontal, parietal and cingulate effects 20 min post stimulation (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum: ↑ FC between (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum and bilateral regions of lateral inferior and middle frontal gyrus and at the (R) intraparietal sulcus, (R) superior frontal gyrus, orbito frontal cortex, posterior temporal lobe, and (L) anterior temporal lobe ↑ FC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior and posterior cingulate cortex, bilateral, supramarginal/angular gyrus, bilateral superior frontal gyrus, (L) precentral gyrus, (R) inferior anterior insula, and the midcingulate ↑rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and DMN regions (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex:↑ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and bilateral areas of the anterior insula/frontal operculum, anterior cingulate, medial superior frontal gyrus, (R) middle frontal gyrus and anterior superior frontal gyrus ↑ rsFC between anterior insula/frontal operculum and (L) dorsal premotor cortex, middle and superior frontal gyrus, angular gyrus, (L) middle and superior temporal gyri and the right supramarginal gyrus No changes after cTBS to primary somatosensory cortex
Gratton et al. (2014)	N = 27 (16:11) 18–31 years^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical and functional) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum – [(L) primary somatosensory cortex]	Resting-state fMRI [~ 10 min] CBF Trend level ↑ in CBF at site of stimulation following cTBS, variability in direction and magnitude of CBF change following cTBS (increased and decreased) at all sites ↑CBF related to decreased FC of cingulo-opercular or fronto-parietal networks following cTBS to (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum or (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, respectively (not due to underlying baseline relationship) When stratified based on directionality of perfusion, group with ↑ perfusion showed reduced network connectivity, and ↓ perfusion showed increased network connectivity
Gann et al. (2021a)	N = 19 (7:12) 22.42 ± 2.36	Pretest-postest, within subjects	iTBS cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex	Task (serial reaction time task)- based fMRI [immediate] *BOLD and functional connectivity* No effect of stimulation type on BOLD response in predefined ROI (basal ganglia, hippocampus, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), no task-related interactions iTBS: ↑BOLD at intraparietal sulcus, cerebellar lobule and frontal cortex during sequence learning (vs random) compared to cTBS dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-hippocampal FC ↓ as a function of learning (serial reaction time task after stimulation) cTBS: DLPFC-hippocampal FC ↑ as a function of learning (serial reaction time task after stimulation)
Gann et al. (2021b)	N = 19 (7:12) 22.42 ± 2.36	Pretest-postest, within subjects	iTBS cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex	Resting-state and task (serial reaction time task)- based fMRI [immediate] *BOLD – pattern similarity and multivoxel correlation structure* No effect of c/iTBS affected early- or late-stage pattern similarity change at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex cTBS: task (sequential, random learning) x stimulation (i/cTBS) interaction indicative of cTBS induced ↓ pattern similarity at early- and late-stage learning/practice during sequential learning at the putamen ↓ resting-state pattern similarity at hippocampus
Hartwigsen et al. (2013)	N = 17 (7:10) 23.8 ± 2.2	Within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) anterior inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 52, 34, − 6) – (L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 52, 13, 8)	Task (speech production)-based fMRI [immediate] *BOLD and Functional Connectivity* (L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus: ↓ BOLD at (L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus and ↑ BOLD at (R) posterior inferior frontal gyrus during pseudo word repetition (L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus: ↑ FC between (R) and (L) posterior inferior frontal gyri
Heinen et al. (2017)	N = 16 (10:6) 19–34 years^b	Pretest–posttest (1^st session only), within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/visual) – (R) frontal eye field (mean MNI = 27, 3, 57)	Task (visuospatial attention shifting)-based fMRI [immediate: 5–10 min] *BOLD and Functional Connectivity* ↓ BOLD bilateral frontal eye field, bilateral supramarginal gyri, (R) inferior parietal lobule, (R) and superior parietal lobule ↓ FC between (R) frontal eye field and (R) supramarginal gyrus, and putamen
Howard et al. (2020)	TBS n = 28 (12: 16) 24.0 ± 3.5 SHAM n = 28 (12: 16) 24.0 ± 4.5	Between-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (R) ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = 48, 38, 20)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* ↓ in (R) central/lateral orbitofrontal cortex related global connectivity with cingulate cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, ventro-temporal cortex, and left orbitofrontal cortex
Iwabuchi et al. (2017)	N = 28^b 25.1 ± 7.1	Within-subjects, sham-controlled	iTBS^c: 3 runs, 5 min apart 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional connectivity* ↓ between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex
Mastropasqua et al. (2014)	TBS: n = 18 (9:9) 26.7 ± 3.8 SHAM: n = 14 (6:8) 27.07 ± 3.6	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	10–20 system – (R) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (F4)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* ↓ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and (R) posterior parietal cortex
Singh et al. (2020)	N = 26 (17:9) 28 ± 8	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled	iTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex	Resting-state fMRI [10 min] *Functional connectivity* ↑ rsFC of the rostral anterior cingulate cortex 10–15 minuites post stimulation ↓ rsFC between rostral and dorsal anterior cingulate cortices, 27–32 min post iTBS compated to 10–15 minuites post Stronger ↓ in rsFC between rostral and dorsal anterior cingulate cortices, medial prefrontal cortex and frontal poles 45–50 min post stimulation No effects of sham
Shang et al. (2019)	N = 36 (15:21) 22.9 ± 3.3	Pretest–posttest, within- and between-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = − 40, 26, 37)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] Functional Connectivity and CBF ↓ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and (R) parahippocampal gyrus, (L) lingual gyrus and posterior cingulate cortex/precuneus No effects of sham No local effects on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity ↑ CBF to (L) parahippocampal gyrus, (L) hippocampus, (L) amygdala, (L) inferior temporal cortex, (L) inferior parietal cortex and (L) precuneus—this did not survive statistical controls
Tang et al. (2019)	N = 10 (6:4) 25.5 ± 2.8	pretest–posttest, within-subjects	iTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = -44, 36, 20)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate, and repeated at 15 min] Functional Connectivity Immediately following TBS: rsFC ↑ between (L) dorsolateral superior frontal gyrus and (L) dorsal inferior frontal gyrus, and ↑ between the (L) rostral inferior frontal gyrus and (R) middle frontal gyrus rsFC ↓ within orbital gyrus regions Effects were attenuated ~ 15 min post TBS 15 min post TBS: rsFC ↓ between caudal inferior frontal gyrus and (R) medial amygdala rsFC ↓ between (L) left caudal inferior frontal gyrus and (R) medial orbital gyrus rsFC ↓ between the (R) opercular inferior frontal gyrus and (L) medial orbital gyrus rsFC ↑ between middle frontal gyrus and (L) orbital gyrus fALFF ↑ at (L) medial superior frontal gyrus, (L) dorsal middle frontal gyrus, (L) ventral cingulate gyrus, and (L) opercular inferior frontal gyrus
Van Holstein et al. (2018)	N = 27 (14:13) 21.7 ± 2.0	Within-subjects, no TMS baseline (either pretest, or 30 min post)	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) anterior prefrontal cortex (MNI = − 30, 60, 8) − (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = -36,36, 20) − (L) premotor cortex (MNI = − 28, 10, 66)	Task (task-switching reward manipulation)-based fMRI [immediate] *BOLD* (L) anterior prefrontal cortex: non-significant trend towards ↓ reward-related processing in the caudate nucleus No effects at other sites
Vidal-Piñeiro et al. (2014)	N = 24 (12:12) 71.8 ± 6.8	Between-subjects, sham-controlled	iTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 42,14,30)	Task (encoding memory)-based and resting-state fMRI [immediate] *BOLD and functional connectivity* iTBS did not have any effects on rsFC during deep encoding BOLD ↑ at primary visual areas, lateral occipital cortex, ventral occipitotemporal areas and the cerebellum Frontal and posterior (cerebellum-occipital) connectivity was greater during deep encoding post iTBS
Wawrzyniak et al. (2017)	N = 20 (10:10) 25.1 ± 2.5	Within- subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (L) anterior inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 54, 26, 4) – (L) posterior middle temporal gyrus (MNI = − 51, − 31, 4)	Resting-state fMRI [8.9 ± 0.4 min] *Functional Connectivity* No effects on rsFC
TBS to the parietal cortex
Abellaneda-Pérez et al. (2019)	Younger: n = 24 (5:19) 23.4 ± 1.6 Older: n = 28 (6:22) 68.2 ± 4.6	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled	iTBS Younger = 80% AMT Older = 90% AMT	Neuronavigation (functional connectivity) – (L) inferior parietal lobule	Resting-state fMRI [Younger: 33 ± 3 min, Older: 34 ± 5 min] *Functional Connectivity* ↑ rsFC between target and anterior (medial frontal) DMN seeds in younger adults ↑ rsFC between (L) inferior parietal lobe and posterior cingulate cortex in older adults who received active, but not sham iTBS ↑ pre-iTBS rsFC predicted “younger” or “younger like” response to iTBS
Anderkova et al. (2018)	N = 20 (7:13) 25.2 ± 2.7	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS iTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (R) inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = 46, 14, 32), – (L) superior parietal lobule (MNI = − 24, − 68, 48)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional connectivity* iTBS to (L) superior parietal lobule: ↑ rsFC between (L) superior parietal lobule and (L) cerebellar nodule, and overall ↑ in rsFC within the dorsal attention network No effects of cTBS
Hermiller et al. (2019)	N = 24 (10:14) 23.5 ± 2.6	Within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS iTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (functional connectivity) – (L) parietal cortex	Resting-state fMRI [~ 6 min] *Functional Connectivity* No effects of cTBS or iTBS on hippocampal-cortical network (target network), dorsal attention network (control), or primary visual network (control) Relationship between behavioural performance on an episodic memory task and hippocampal-cortical network connectivity
Mancini et al. (2017)	N = 15 (7:8) 26 ± 3.28	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS distance adjusted motor threshold	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – precuneus (midline)	Resting-state fMRI [5 min] *Graph Analysis/Functional Connectivity* Graph analysis: ↓ involvement of (L) temporal pole at 5–14 min post stimulation. No effects at 15–24 min post stimulation ↑ size of precuneus module at 15–24 min post stimulation Seed-based analysis: ↓ rsFC between precuneus and (L) temporal pole at 5–14 and 15–24 min post stimulation
Thakral et al. (2020)	N = 19 (5:14) 21.2 ± 0.38	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, active-controlled	cTBS	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) angular gyrus [vertex]	Resting-state fMRI [time to return to scanner unclear/not reported] *Functional connectivity* ↓ functional connectivity between angular gyrus and hippocampal seeds following cTBS to angular gyrus, but not vertex Note: analyses not fitting specified inclusion criteria have not been reviewed
Valchev et al. (2015)	N = 17 (11:6) 20.9 ± 2.0	Within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) primary somatosensory cortex (mean MNI: − 43 − 35 57)	Resting-state fMRI [within 6 min] *Functional connectivity* ↓ rsFC between (L) primary somatosensory cortex and dorsal premotor cortex, and premotor cortex/supplementary motor area
Valchev et al. (2016)	N = 17 (11:6) 20.9 ± 2.0	Within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% RMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (L) primary somatosensory cortex (mean MNI: − 43 − 35 57)	Task (action/observation)- based fMRI [within 6 min] *BOLD* No group effects at target site. Individual results indicate reduction of signal for some participants, and an increase for others
TBS to the temporal cortex
Andoh et al. (2013)	N = 13 (6:7) 23.3 ± 5.9	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS 41% MSO	Neuronavigation (functional activation): – (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus – (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus Neuronavigation (anatomical) – [vertex]	Task (melody)-based fMRI [immediate: 2.8 min ± 0.4 min] *BOLD and Functional Connectivity* (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↑ BOLD at (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus, inferior and superior temporal cortices, and middle frontal gyrus (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↑ FC between (L)/(R) auditory cortices, (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus and (R) pre- & post- central gyri and insula
Andoh et al. (2015)	N = 17 (8:9) 23.1 ± 4.9	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS 41% MSO	Neuronavigation (Anatomical/coordinate) – (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus (MNI = -51.4, -17.2, 2.6) – (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus (MNI = 54.6, -10.8, 0.3) – [vertex (anatomically defined)]	Resting-state fMRI [immediate: day 1 = 2.8 ± 0.5 min, day 2 = 2.5 ± 0.3 min, day 3 = 2.4 ± 0.1 min] *Functional Connectivity* (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↓ in ipsilateral and contralateral auditory regions, and bilateral motor (including motor, premotor, and primary and secondary somatosensory cortices) regions (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↓ rsFC with (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus
Pitcher et al. (2014)	N = 15^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS; Total pulses: 900 80% AMT or 30% MSO (whichever was higher)	Neuronavigation (functional) – (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus – (R) occipital face area	Task (face/emotion processing)-based fMRI [time to return to scanner unclear/not reported] *BOLD* (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus: ↓ (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus (dynamic faces)
Pitcher et al. (2017)	N = 23 (10:13)^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS; Total pulses: 900 80% AMT or 30% MSO (whichever was higher)	Neuronavigation (functional) – (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus – [vertex]; top of the head halfway between nasion/inion	Task (face/emotion processing)-based fMRI [immediate] *BOLD* ↓ BOLD in response to faces at (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus, (R) anterior posterior superior temporal sulcus, and amygdala
Soutschekid et al. (2020)	N = 60 (23:37) 23.4 ± 2.4	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, active-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate) – (R) temporoparietal junction (MNI = 60, − 58, 31) [vertex]	Task (delayed gratification)-based fMRI [immediate] *BOLD and Psychophysiological interactions (connectivity)* No effects on striatum or ventromedial prefrontal cortex based on region of interest analysis. Interaction between delayed gratification and connectivity between the (R) temporoparietal junction and striatum ↓ dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation following cTBS to the (R) temporoparietal junction compared to vertex, but no difference in (R) temporoparietal junction—dorsolateral prefrontal cortex connectivity between (R) temporoparietal junction and vertex stimulation Exploratory whole brain analysis revealed no effect of cTBS during task performance
TBS to the occipital cortex
Groen et al. (2021)	N = 16 (4:12) Average age = 24.4 years	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham- and active-controlled	cTBS 30% MSO	Neuronavigation (functional) – (R) occipital place area – [(R) occipital face area	Task (scene selectivity)-related fMRI [3 min] BOLD ↓ BOLD at parahippacampal face area post active stimulation (both conditions, stronger effects from occipital place area)—no effects of scene type/condition (ROI and whole brain analysis) ↓ BOLD at fusiform face area following active control (occipital face area) stimulation—no effects of scene type/condition (ROI and whole brain analysis) ↓ BOLD at occipital place area, fusiform face area, occipital face area and parahippacampal face area post occipital place area stimulation no effects of scene type/condition (whole brain analysis) Occipital face area stimulation resulted in ↑ BOLD at occipital face area, and ↓ BOLD at occipital place area, fusiform face area and parahippocampal face area—no effects of scene type/condition (whole brain analysis)
Pitcher et al. (2014)	N = 15^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS; Total pulses: 900 80% AMT or 30% MSO (whichever was higher)	Neuronavigation (functional) – (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus – (R) occipital face area	Task (face/emotion processing)-based fMRI [time to return to scanner unclear/not reported] *BOLD* (R) occipital face area: ↓ (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus (static faces)
Rahnev et al. (2013)	N = 4(2:2) 23–32 years^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects	cTBS 80% phosphene threshold	Hot-spot “hunting procedure” – (L) occipital cortex – [vertex]	Resting-state fMRI [time to return to scanner unclear/not reported] *Functional connectivity* ↓ between V1-2, V1-3, V2-3 ↓ between L-R V1, V2, V3
TBS to the cerebellum
Halko et al. (2014)	N = 9 (5:4)^b	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled	iTBS 100% AMT	Neuronavigation (functional) – (R) lateral cerebellum; Crus I or Crus II (mean MNI = 41, 72, 39) Neuronavigation (anatomical) – midline cerebellum; lobule VII (MNI = 1, 73, 33)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* (R) lateral cerebellum: ↑ DMN FC Medial cerebellum: ↑ dorsal attention network connectivity
Odorfer et al. (2019)	N = 8^b	Pretest–posttest, between-subjects	cTBS 80% AMT	Measurement (3 cm lateral and 1 cm inferior to the inion) – (L) cerebellum (lobule VIII) followed by (R) cerebellum (60 s break between sites) – [dorsal premotor cortex]	Task (finger-tapping)- related fMRI BOLD [immediate] Cerebellar cTBS had no effects on brain activation in healthy controls
Rastogi et al. (2017)	N = 12 (7:5) 29.7 ± 9.4	Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled	cTBS 80% AMT	Measurement – (R) cerebellum; crus 1 (1 cm inferior and 3 cm to the right of the inion)	Resting-state fMRI [immediate] *Functional Connectivity* ↓ rsFC in active compared to sham cTBS in non-motor (cognitive) network: (L) inferior parietal lobe, posterior medial frontal cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, and (R) medial posterior parietal cortex (precuneus) No effect on motor network

Reference

Sample size, sex ratio (M:F), age (years)

Study design

TBS protocol, parameters^a, Stimulation Intensity

Method for locating target site
[active control]

Outcome Protocol
[Time to return to scanner]
Paradigm
Summary of results

TBS to the motor cortex

Agnew et al. (2018)

N = 16

23–49 years ^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS; Total pulses: 300

40% MSO

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (R) ventral premotor cortex (MNI = 54, − 2, 44)

– [vertex]: middle of nasion and inion

Task (auditory emotion)-based fMRI

[fMRI 5 min post cTBS]

BOLD

No effects at target site or contralateral homologue

↑ at a (R) post- and pre-central gyri

↑ inferior frontal gyrus (pars opercularis and triangularis), (L) supplementary motor area, cerebellar vermis, (R) parahippocampal gyrus, bilateral inferior parietal lobe (angular gyrus), bilateral superior and right middle frontal gyri and (R) postcentral gyrus

↓ (L) hippocampus, (R) middle cingulate cortex, (R)

precuneus, (L) supramarginal gyrus, (R) supplementary motor area, (R) inferior frontal gyrus (pars triangularis) and (R) rolandic operculum

Annak et al. (2019)

N = 16 (6:10)

23.8 ± 2.3

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (functional activation):

– (L) primary motor cortex; FDI representation

– (L) secondary somatosensory cortex

Task (nociceptive stimulation; chemosensory pain model)-based fMRI

[time to return to scanner unclear/not reported]

BOLD

(L) primary motor cortex: ↓ BOLD at rolandic operculum, insula and postcentral gyrus

Strength of relationship between BOLD signal and stimulus strength reduced post cTBS to (L) primary motor cortex

No effects of stimulation to (L) secondary somatosensory cortex

Cárdenas-Morales et al. (2011)

N = 17 (17:0)

27.3 ± 2.6

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

iTBS

90% AMT

Hot-spot

– (L) primary motor cortex; APB representation

Task (choice reaction)-based and resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD and CBF

Task: ↓ BOLD at (L) primary motor cortex, and (R) primary motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, rostral parts of (R) superior and inferior parietal gyrus, and the (R) premotor area

No effects at rest

Cocchi et al. (2015)

N = 23 (11:12)

23.0 ± 3.0

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

iTBS

80% AMT

Hot-spot

– (R) primary motor cortex; APB

Resting-state fMRI

[5 min]

Functional Connectivity

cTBS: ↓ participation index (PI) and ↑ within module degree (WMD) at motor and somatosensory cortices, ↑ PI and ↓ WMD at insula, striatum, and (L) temporal cortex

iTBS: No effects of iTBS on PI or WMD

Hu et al. (2017)

N = 36 (17:19)

20–34 years^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

70% RMT

Hot-Spot

– (R) primary motor cortex; FDI

Resting-state fMRI

[30 min]

Functional connectivity

Bilaterally ↓ ALFF, fALFF and ReHO along the postcentral gyrus at sites controlling the (L) face and limbs and (L) and (R) trunk

Ji et al. (2017)

N = 19 (6:13) 22.7 ± 2.1

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS (3 runs, 15 min apart)

70% RMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) supplementary motor area (MNI = − 6, − 6, 77)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD and Functional Connectivity

No local effects

↓ rsFC at the (L) inferior frontal gyrus, and (L) supplementary motor area/middle cingulate cortex, maintained for 6.1 min in the (L) inferior frontal gyrus and 6.6 min in the (L) supplementary motor area/middle cingulate cortex

Ji et al. (2020)

Primary study: N = 33 (17:16)

Secondary (validation) study: N = (11:5) 20.4 ± 0.51

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham controlled (validation study)

cTBS: 3 runs, 15 min apart

70% RMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

(L) supplementary motor area

(MNI = − 6, − 6, 77)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

Primary study: ↓ rsFC at the bilateral cerebellum immediately post stimulation (T2). ↑ rsFC at the paracentral gyrus at T3 (immediately post T2)

Validation study: ↑ rsFC at the paracentral gyrus at T3 (immediately post T2)

Matusa et al. (2022)

N = 25

27–43 years

Pre-test – posttest, within subjects

cTBS

80% AMT

Hot-spot

– (L) primary motor cortex; APB

Resting-state fMRI

[15 min]

Network activity

No difference in resting state network activity per-post cTBS

Nettekoven et al. (2014)

N = 16 (7:9)

27.0 ± 3.0

Pretest–posttest, sham-controlled, within-subjects, repeated measured (time-points)

iTBS: 3 runs, 15 min apart

70% RMT

Hot-spot

– (L) primary motor cortex; APB

Resting-state fMRI

[~ 3 min]

Functional connectivity

↑ rsFC between primary motor cortex and various sensorimotor regions, with local maxima consistently at bilateral supplementary motor area and dorsal premotor cortex (superior frontal sulcus) across blocks, and less consistently in parts of the somatosensory and superior parietal cortices. No effects in a control (visual) network

Dose dependency: primary motor cortex-dorsal premotor cortex connectivity was significantly higher after iTBS₁₈₀₀ compared with iTBS₆₀₀ and iTBS₁₂₀₀, but not between iTBS₆₀₀ and iTBS₁₂₀₀, and sham

Supplementary control experiment: iTBS₁₈₀₀ = ↑rsFC between primary motor cortex and bilateral supplementary motor area, dorsal premotor cortex, and parts of the somatosensory and superior parietal cortex when compared to iTBS₆₀₀ followed by 2 sham runs, supporting the notion of a cumulative (dosage) effect, rather than delayed effect of a single dose of iTBS

Nettekoven et al. (2015)

N = 16 (7:9)

27.0 ± 3.0

Pretest–posttest, sham-controlled, within-subjects, repeated measures (time-points)

iTBS: 3 runs, 15 min apart

70% RMT

Hot-spot

– (L) primary motor cortex; APB

Resting-state fMRI

[~ 3 min]

Functional connectivity

In responders, ↑ FC between primary motor cortex and bilateral supplementary motor area and dorsal premotor cortex, as well as the contralateral primary motor cortex

rsFC ↑ with each dose of iTBS in responder group, but not for non-responders. i.e. multiple doses of iTBS did not change responsiveness to iTBS (non-responders did not become responders)

Orosz et al. (2012)

N = 12 (7:5) 23.9 ± 2.1

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% RMT

Hot-spot

– (R) primary motor cortex; small hand muscles

Task (finger tapping)-based and resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

CBF

CBF ↑ at (R) primary motor cortex during finger tapping (left hand) compared to rest

CBF ↑ at (R) primary motor cortex, and more voxels were implicated compared to baseline

Ruan et al. (2017)

N = 60 (30:30)

23.5 ± 4.4

Pretest–posttest, within- and between-subjects

iTBS

cTBS

cTBS_left + iTBS_right

– (L) primary motor cortex; suprahyoid muscle

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

cTBS ↓ ALFF in anterior cingulate gyrus

iTBS ↑ ALFF to bilateral precuneus

cTBS + iTBS ↓ ALFF in brainstem and ↑ ALFF in middle cingulate cortex and (L) precentral gyrus

Ruan et al. (2019)

N = 60 (30:30)

23.5 ± 4.4

Pretest–posttest, within- and between- subjects

iTBS

cTBS

cTBS_left + iTBS_right

– (L) primary motor cortex; suprahyoid muscle

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

cTBS ↑ ReHo in the (R) lingual gyrus and (R) precuneus, and ↓ ReHo in the posterior cingulate gyrus

iTBS ↑ ReHo in the bilateral precentral gyrus, (L) postcentral gyrus, and cuneus, and ↓ ReHo in the (L) cerebellum, brainstem, (L) temporal gyrus, (R) insula, and (L) middle frontal gyrus

cTBS + iTBS ↑ ReHo in the precuneus and ↓ ReHo in the (R) cerebellum posterior lobe, (L) cerebellum anterior lobe, and (R) inferior frontal gyrus

Steel et al. (2016)

N = 22 (10:12) 26.0 ± 4.2

Within subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Hot-spot

– (L) primary motor cortex; FDI

Task (motor procedural learning)- based fMRI

[330 ± 80 s for the TBS and 450 ± 28 s for sham]

BOLD and functional connectivity

No effects of cTBS on BOLD response at any brain region

↓ global connectivity at (L) primary visual cortex and dorsal premotor area

↑ global connectivity at middle cingulate gyrus, dorsal anterior cingulate, and superior frontal gyrus

↓ FC between (L) inferior occipital gyrus and dorsal premotor area, supplementary motor area, and primary motor cortex

↓ FC between superior occipital gyrus and primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area

↑ FC between the middle temporal and dorsal anterior cingulate

↑ FC between the superior and inferior frontal gyri

Van Nuenun et al. (2012)

N = 11 (11:0)

27.0 ± 6.5

Within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Measurement

– (L) dorsal premotor cortex (2 cm anterior and 1 cm medial to hot-spot [FDI])

Task (cued grip and lift)-based fMRI

[15 min]

BOLD

cTBS did not modulate preparatory activity at (L) dorsal premotor cortex

Welniarz et al. (2019)

N = 22^c

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

90% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical)

– (R) supplementary motor area

Task (delayed response cued-movement go-no-go)-based fMRI

[within 30 min of TBS]

BOLD and Functional Connectivity

cTBS did not affect BOLD

Bimanual preparation: FC between (L) supplementary motor area and primary motor cortex was negative before cTBS and positive afterward

FC between (L) and (R) supplementary motor area was positive pre cTBS and reinforced post

(L) and (R) primary motor cortex FC was positive post cTBS

Zhang et al. (2020)

N = 40 (20:20)

23.7 ± 2.6

cTBS: n = 20 (10:10)

23.6 ± 2.2

iTBS: n = 20 (10:10)

23.0 ± 2.7

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects

cTBS

iTBS

80% AMT

Hot-spot

– (L) primary motor cortex; suprahyoid muscle

Resting-state fMRI

[within 30 min]

Functional Connectivity

cTBS: ↑ degree centrality in (L) inferior frontal gyrus compared to baseline

iTBS: ↓ degree centrality in the (L) cerebellum and medial frontal gyrus

↑ degree centrality in the (R) superior temporal gyrus, superior frontal gyrus, and postcentral gyrus, as well as the (L) paracentral lobule compared to baseline

TBS to the prefrontal cortex

Alkhasli et al. (2019)

N = 16 (8:8)

27.6 ± 7.0

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

iTBS

90% RMT

120% RMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex:

(Tal = − 45, 45, 35)

Resting-state fMRI

[7 min]

Functional Connectivity

Sub threshold stimulation: ↑ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the striatum, (L) and (R) caudate

Supra-threshold stimulation: ↑ rsFC between (L) caudate and the (L) and (R) amygdala

Anderkova et al. (2018)

N = 20 (7:13)

25.2 ± 2.7

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

iTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (R) inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = 46, 14, 32)

– (L) superior parietal lobule (MNI =

− 24, − 68, 48)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional connectivity

No reported effects of (R) inferior frontal gyrus stimulation

Gratton, et al. (2013)

N = 27 (16:11)

18–31 years ^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical and functional)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

– (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum

– [(L) primary somatosensory cortex]

Resting-state fMRI

[~ 10 min]

BOLD and Functional Connectivity

Non-significant trend towards increased rsFC of the fronto-parietal network following TBS to both the (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum compared to active control. Strongest ~ 20 min post TBS

No whole brain effects immediately following TBS to either test site. Widespread frontal, parietal and cingulate effects 20 min post stimulation

(L) anterior insula/frontal operculum: ↑ FC between (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum and bilateral regions of lateral inferior and middle frontal gyrus and at the (R) intraparietal sulcus, (R) superior frontal gyrus, orbito frontal cortex, posterior temporal lobe, and (L) anterior temporal lobe

↑ FC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior and posterior cingulate cortex, bilateral, supramarginal/angular gyrus, bilateral superior frontal gyrus, (L) precentral gyrus, (R) inferior anterior insula, and the midcingulate

↑rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and DMN regions

(L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex:↑ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and bilateral areas of the anterior insula/frontal operculum, anterior cingulate, medial superior frontal gyrus, (R) middle frontal gyrus and anterior superior frontal gyrus

↑ rsFC between anterior insula/frontal operculum and (L) dorsal premotor cortex, middle and superior frontal gyrus, angular gyrus, (L) middle and superior temporal gyri and the right supramarginal gyrus

No changes after cTBS to primary somatosensory cortex

Gratton et al. (2014)

N = 27 (16:11)

18–31 years^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical and functional)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

– (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum

– [(L) primary somatosensory cortex]

Resting-state fMRI

[~ 10 min]

CBF

Trend level ↑ in CBF at site of stimulation following cTBS, variability in direction and magnitude of CBF change following cTBS (increased and decreased) at all sites

↑CBF related to decreased FC of cingulo-opercular or fronto-parietal networks following cTBS to (L) anterior insula/frontal operculum or (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, respectively (not due to underlying baseline relationship)

When stratified based on directionality of perfusion, group with ↑ perfusion showed reduced network connectivity, and ↓ perfusion showed increased network connectivity

Gann et al. (2021a)

N = 19

(7:12)

22.42 ± 2.36

Pretest-postest, within subjects

iTBS

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Task (serial reaction time task)- based fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD and functional connectivity

No effect of stimulation type on BOLD response in predefined ROI (basal ganglia, hippocampus, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), no task-related interactions

iTBS: ↑BOLD at intraparietal sulcus, cerebellar lobule and frontal cortex during sequence learning (vs random) compared to cTBS

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-hippocampal FC ↓ as a function of learning (serial reaction time task after stimulation)

cTBS: DLPFC-hippocampal FC ↑ as a function of learning (serial reaction time task after stimulation)

Gann et al. (2021b)

N = 19

(7:12)

22.42 ± 2.36

Pretest-postest, within subjects

iTBS

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Resting-state and task (serial reaction time task)- based fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD – pattern similarity and multivoxel correlation structure

No effect of c/iTBS affected early- or late-stage pattern similarity change at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

cTBS: task (sequential, random learning) x stimulation (i/cTBS) interaction indicative of cTBS induced ↓ pattern similarity at early- and late-stage learning/practice during sequential learning at the putamen

↓ resting-state pattern similarity at hippocampus

Hartwigsen et al. (2013)

N = 17 (7:10)

23.8 ± 2.2

Within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation

(anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) anterior inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 52, 34, − 6)

– (L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 52, 13, 8)

Task (speech production)-based fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD and Functional Connectivity

(L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus: ↓ BOLD at (L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus and ↑ BOLD at (R) posterior inferior frontal gyrus during pseudo word repetition

(L) posterior inferior frontal gyrus: ↑ FC between (R) and (L) posterior inferior frontal gyri

Heinen et al. (2017)

N = 16 (10:6)

19–34 years^b

Pretest–posttest (1^st session only), within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/visual)

– (R) frontal eye field (mean MNI = 27, 3, 57)

Task (visuospatial attention shifting)-based fMRI

[immediate: 5–10 min]

BOLD and Functional Connectivity

↓ BOLD bilateral frontal eye field, bilateral supramarginal gyri, (R) inferior parietal lobule, (R) and superior parietal lobule

↓ FC between (R) frontal eye field and (R) supramarginal gyrus, and putamen

Howard et al. (2020)

TBS

n = 28 (12: 16)

24.0 ± 3.5

SHAM

n = 28 (12: 16)

24.0 ± 4.5

Between-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (R) ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = 48, 38, 20)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

↓ in (R) central/lateral orbitofrontal cortex related global connectivity with cingulate cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, ventro-temporal cortex, and left orbitofrontal cortex

Iwabuchi et al. (2017)

N = 28^b

25.1 ± 7.1

Within-subjects, sham-controlled

iTBS^c: 3 runs, 5 min apart

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional connectivity

↓ between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex

Mastropasqua et al. (2014)

TBS: n = 18 (9:9)

26.7 ± 3.8

SHAM: n = 14 (6:8)

27.07 ± 3.6

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

10–20 system

– (R) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (F4)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

↓ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and (R) posterior parietal cortex

Singh et al. (2020)

N = 26

(17:9)

28 ± 8

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled

iTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Resting-state fMRI

[10 min]

Functional connectivity

↑ rsFC of the rostral anterior cingulate cortex 10–15 minuites post stimulation

↓ rsFC between rostral and dorsal anterior cingulate cortices, 27–32 min post iTBS compated to 10–15 minuites post

Stronger ↓ in rsFC between rostral and dorsal anterior cingulate cortices, medial prefrontal cortex and frontal poles 45–50 min post stimulation

No effects of sham

Shang et al. (2019)

N = 36 (15:21)

22.9

± 3.3

Pretest–posttest, within- and between-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = − 40, 26, 37)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity and CBF

↓ rsFC between (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and (R) parahippocampal gyrus, (L) lingual gyrus and posterior cingulate cortex/precuneus

No effects of sham

No local effects on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity

↑ CBF to (L) parahippocampal gyrus, (L) hippocampus, (L) amygdala, (L) inferior temporal cortex, (L) inferior parietal cortex and (L) precuneus—this did not survive statistical controls

Tang et al. (2019)

N = 10 (6:4) 25.5 ± 2.8

pretest–posttest, within-subjects

iTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = -44, 36, 20)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate, and repeated at 15 min]

Functional Connectivity

Immediately following TBS: rsFC ↑ between (L) dorsolateral superior frontal gyrus and (L) dorsal inferior frontal gyrus, and ↑ between the (L) rostral inferior frontal gyrus and (R) middle frontal gyrus

rsFC ↓ within orbital gyrus regions

Effects were attenuated ~ 15 min post TBS

15 min post TBS: rsFC ↓ between caudal inferior frontal gyrus and (R) medial amygdala

rsFC ↓ between (L) left caudal inferior frontal gyrus and (R) medial orbital gyrus

rsFC ↓ between the (R) opercular inferior frontal gyrus and (L) medial orbital gyrus

rsFC ↑ between middle frontal gyrus and (L) orbital gyrus

fALFF ↑ at (L) medial superior frontal gyrus, (L) dorsal middle frontal gyrus, (L) ventral cingulate gyrus, and (L) opercular inferior frontal gyrus

Van Holstein et al. (2018)

N = 27 (14:13)

21.7 ± 2.0

Within-subjects, no TMS baseline (either pretest, or 30 min post)

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) anterior prefrontal cortex (MNI = − 30, 60, 8)

− (L) dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (MNI = -36,36, 20)

− (L) premotor cortex (MNI = − 28, 10, 66)

Task (task-switching reward manipulation)-based fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD

(L) anterior prefrontal cortex: non-significant trend towards ↓ reward-related processing in the caudate nucleus

No effects at other sites

Vidal-Piñeiro et al. (2014)

N = 24 (12:12) 71.8 ± 6.8

Between-subjects, sham-controlled

iTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 42,14,30)

Task (encoding memory)-based and resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD and functional connectivity

iTBS did not have any effects on rsFC during deep encoding

BOLD ↑ at primary visual areas, lateral occipital cortex, ventral occipitotemporal areas and the cerebellum

Frontal and posterior (cerebellum-occipital) connectivity was greater during deep encoding post iTBS

Wawrzyniak et al. (2017)

N = 20 (10:10)

25.1 ± 2.5

Within- subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) anterior inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = − 54, 26, 4)

– (L) posterior middle temporal gyrus (MNI = − 51, − 31, 4)

Resting-state fMRI

[8.9 ± 0.4 min]

Functional Connectivity

No effects on rsFC

TBS to the parietal cortex

Abellaneda-Pérez et al. (2019)

Younger:

n = 24 (5:19)

23.4 ± 1.6

Older:

n = 28 (6:22)

68.2 ± 4.6

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled

iTBS

Younger = 80% AMT

Older = 90% AMT

Neuronavigation (functional connectivity)

– (L) inferior parietal lobule

Resting-state fMRI

[Younger: 33 ± 3 min, Older: 34 ± 5 min]

Functional Connectivity

↑ rsFC between target and anterior (medial frontal) DMN seeds in younger adults

↑ rsFC between (L) inferior parietal lobe and posterior cingulate cortex in older adults who received active, but not sham iTBS

↑ pre-iTBS rsFC predicted “younger” or “younger like” response to iTBS

Anderkova et al. (2018)

N = 20 (7:13)

25.2 ± 2.7

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

iTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (R) inferior frontal gyrus (MNI = 46, 14, 32),

– (L) superior parietal lobule (MNI =

− 24, − 68, 48)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional connectivity

iTBS to (L) superior parietal lobule: ↑ rsFC between (L) superior parietal lobule and (L) cerebellar nodule, and overall ↑ in rsFC within the dorsal attention network

No effects of cTBS

Hermiller et al. (2019)

N = 24 (10:14)

23.5 ± 2.6

Within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

iTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (functional connectivity)

– (L) parietal cortex

Resting-state fMRI

[~ 6 min]

Functional Connectivity

No effects of cTBS or iTBS on hippocampal-cortical network (target network), dorsal attention network (control), or primary visual network (control)

Relationship between behavioural performance on an episodic memory task and hippocampal-cortical network connectivity

Mancini et al. (2017)

N = 15 (7:8) 26 ± 3.28

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

distance adjusted motor threshold

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– precuneus (midline)

Resting-state fMRI

[5 min]

Graph Analysis/Functional Connectivity

Graph analysis: ↓ involvement of (L) temporal pole at 5–14 min post stimulation. No effects at 15–24 min post stimulation

↑ size of precuneus module at 15–24 min post stimulation

Seed-based analysis: ↓ rsFC between precuneus and (L) temporal pole at 5–14 and 15–24 min post stimulation

Thakral et al. (2020)

N = 19

(5:14)

21.2 ± 0.38

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, active-controlled

cTBS

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) angular gyrus

[vertex]

Resting-state fMRI

[time to return to scanner unclear/not reported]

Functional connectivity

↓ functional connectivity between angular gyrus and hippocampal seeds following cTBS to angular gyrus, but not vertex

Note: analyses not fitting specified inclusion criteria have not been reviewed

Valchev et al. (2015)

N = 17 (11:6)

20.9 ± 2.0

Within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) primary somatosensory cortex (mean MNI: − 43 − 35 57)

Resting-state fMRI

[within 6 min]

Functional connectivity

↓ rsFC between (L) primary somatosensory cortex and dorsal premotor cortex, and premotor cortex/supplementary motor area

Valchev et al. (2016)

N = 17 (11:6)

20.9 ± 2.0

Within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% RMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (L) primary somatosensory cortex (mean MNI: − 43 − 35 57)

Task (action/observation)- based fMRI

[within 6 min]

BOLD

No group effects at target site. Individual results indicate reduction of signal for some participants, and an increase for others

TBS to the temporal cortex

Andoh et al. (2013)

N = 13 (6:7)

23.3 ± 5.9

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

41% MSO

Neuronavigation (functional

activation):

– (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus

– (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus

Neuronavigation (anatomical)

– [vertex]

Task (melody)-based fMRI

[immediate: 2.8 min ± 0.4 min]

BOLD and Functional Connectivity

(R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↑ BOLD at (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus, inferior and superior temporal cortices, and middle frontal gyrus

(R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↑ FC between (L)/(R) auditory cortices, (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus and (R) pre- & post- central gyri and insula

Andoh et al. (2015)

N = 17 (8:9)

23.1 ± 4.9

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

41% MSO

Neuronavigation (Anatomical/coordinate)

– (L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus

(MNI = -51.4, -17.2, 2.6)

– (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus (MNI = 54.6, -10.8, 0.3)

– [vertex (anatomically defined)]

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate: day 1 = 2.8 ± 0.5 min, day 2 = 2.5 ± 0.3 min, day 3 = 2.4 ± 0.1 min]

Functional Connectivity

(R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↓ in ipsilateral and contralateral auditory regions, and bilateral motor (including motor, premotor, and primary and secondary somatosensory cortices) regions

(L) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus: ↓ rsFC with (R) anterolateral Heschl's gyrus

Pitcher et al. (2014)

N = 15^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS; Total pulses: 900

80% AMT or 30% MSO (whichever was higher)

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus

– (R) occipital face area

Task (face/emotion processing)-based fMRI

[time to return to scanner unclear/not reported]

BOLD

(R) posterior superior temporal sulcus: ↓ (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus (dynamic faces)

Pitcher et al. (2017)

N = 23 (10:13)^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS; Total pulses: 900

80% AMT or 30% MSO (whichever was higher)

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus

– [vertex]; top of the head halfway between nasion/inion

Task (face/emotion processing)-based fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD

↓ BOLD in response to faces at (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus, (R) anterior posterior superior temporal sulcus, and amygdala

Soutschekid et al. (2020)

N = 60 (23:37)

23.4 ± 2.4

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects, active-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Neuronavigation (anatomical/coordinate)

– (R) temporoparietal junction (MNI = 60, − 58, 31)

[vertex]

Task (delayed gratification)-based fMRI

[immediate]

BOLD and Psychophysiological interactions (connectivity)

No effects on striatum or ventromedial prefrontal cortex based on region of interest analysis. Interaction between delayed gratification and connectivity between the (R) temporoparietal junction and striatum

↓ dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation following cTBS to the (R) temporoparietal junction compared to vertex, but no difference in (R) temporoparietal junction—dorsolateral prefrontal cortex connectivity between (R) temporoparietal junction and vertex stimulation

Exploratory whole brain analysis revealed no effect of cTBS during task performance

TBS to the occipital cortex

Groen et al. (2021)

N = 16

(4:12)

Average age = 24.4 years

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham- and active-controlled

cTBS

30% MSO

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (R) occipital place area

– [(R) occipital face area

Task (scene selectivity)-related fMRI

[3 min]

BOLD

↓ BOLD at parahippacampal face area post active stimulation (both conditions, stronger effects from occipital place area)—no effects of scene type/condition (ROI and whole brain analysis)

↓ BOLD at fusiform face area following active control (occipital face area) stimulation—no effects of scene type/condition (ROI and whole brain analysis)

↓ BOLD at occipital place area, fusiform face area, occipital face area and parahippacampal face area post occipital place area stimulation no effects of scene type/condition (whole brain analysis)

Occipital face area stimulation resulted in ↑ BOLD at occipital face area, and ↓ BOLD at occipital place area, fusiform face area and parahippocampal face area—no effects of scene type/condition (whole brain analysis)

Pitcher et al. (2014)

N = 15^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS; Total pulses: 900

80% AMT or 30% MSO (whichever was higher)

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus

– (R) occipital face area

Task (face/emotion processing)-based fMRI

[time to return to scanner unclear/not reported]

BOLD

(R) occipital face area: ↓ (R) posterior superior temporal sulcus (static faces)

Rahnev et al. (2013)

N = 4(2:2)

23–32 years^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects

cTBS

80% phosphene threshold

Hot-spot “hunting procedure”

– (L) occipital cortex

– [vertex]

Resting-state fMRI

[time to return to scanner unclear/not reported]

Functional connectivity

↓ between V1-2, V1-3, V2-3

↓ between L-R V1, V2, V3

TBS to the cerebellum

Halko et al. (2014)

N = 9 (5:4)^b

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled

iTBS

100% AMT

Neuronavigation (functional)

– (R) lateral cerebellum; Crus I or Crus II (mean MNI = 41, 72, 39)

Neuronavigation (anatomical)

– midline cerebellum; lobule VII (MNI = 1, 73, 33)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

(R) lateral cerebellum: ↑ DMN FC

Medial cerebellum: ↑ dorsal attention network connectivity

Odorfer et al. (2019)

N = 8^b

Pretest–posttest, between-subjects

cTBS

80% AMT

Measurement (3 cm lateral and 1 cm inferior to the inion)

– (L) cerebellum (lobule VIII) followed by (R) cerebellum (60 s break between sites)

– [dorsal premotor cortex]

Task (finger-tapping)- related fMRI

BOLD

[immediate]

Cerebellar cTBS had no effects on brain activation in healthy controls

Rastogi et al. (2017)

N = 12 (7:5) 29.7 ± 9.4

Pretest–posttest, within-subjects, sham-controlled

cTBS

80% AMT

Measurement

– (R) cerebellum; crus 1 (1 cm inferior and 3 cm to the right of the inion)

Resting-state fMRI

[immediate]

Functional Connectivity

↓ rsFC in active compared to sham cTBS in non-motor (cognitive) network: (L) inferior parietal lobe, posterior medial frontal cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, and (R) medial posterior parietal cortex (precuneus)

No effect on motor network

↑: increased, ↓: decreased, L: left, R: right, ALFF amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation, AMT active motor threshold, APB abductor pollicis brevis, BOLD blood oxygen level dependant, CBF cerebral blood flow, cTBS continuous theta burst stimulation, DMN default mode network, fALFF functional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation, FC functional connectivity, FDI first dorsal interosseous, fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging, iTBS intermittent theta burst stimulation, MNI Montreal Neurological Institute coordinate system, MSO maximum stimulator output, ReHo regional homogeneity, RMT resting motor threshold, ROI region of interest, rsFC resting-state functional connectivity, TBS theta burst stimulation

^aParameter detail only provided when divergent from those reported by Huang et al. (2005). Where detail was not provided, it has been assumed that the protocol is comparable to that reported by Huang et al. (2005)

^bDemographic information unclear, incomplete or not provided

^cAuthors (Iwabuchi et al. 2017) report iTBS, however, parameters are consistent with cTBS