Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 1;8(1):ENEURO.0392-20.2020. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0392-20.2020

Figure 4.

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.