Figure 5. Effective connectivity in the semantic network.

(A) The winning DCM model assumed modulation of the connection from left AG to aIFG by cTBS of left AG. Mean parameter estimates are given for the significant driving input to SMG, the facilitatory intrinsic connections from AG to aIFG and SMG (solid arrows) and the inhibitory modulation of the connection from AG to aIFG by cTBS over AG (red line), (*)survived a Bonferoni-Holm correction. (B) Regression analysis. The increase in the inhibitory influence of AG on aIFG after AG cTBS predicted the individual semantic response delay. (C) The degree of the individual upregulation of left SMG after cTBS of AG (effect sizes for AG/sham extracted from the effect of interest at x,y,z= −45,–40, 46) was significantly correlated with the delay in semantic response speed after AG/sham cTBS.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25964.011

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Illustration of the different DCM-models.

Panel A displays seven models that differ with respect to the driving input regions (indicated by fat solid arrows). Panel B shows nine models with different external modulations by the cTBS conditions (applied over AG or SMG, indicated by red lines). The combination of both model types resulted in a total of 63 models. All models had the same intrinsic connections (shown as dotted arrows).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25964.012

Figure 5—figure supplement 2. Regression analysis.

The individual increase in the inhibitory influence of AG on aIFG after AG / sham cTBS predicted the individual semantic response delay.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25964.013