Table 5.

Effect of rTMS on fear memory and extinction in healthy participants.

References	Study type	N/Groups	Gender, M/F (age, Mean ± SD)	Target area	Coil position	Online/offline stimulation	Pulses per session/duration	Frequency/Intensity/Coil shape	Type of CS/US	Reinforcement rate	Outcome measures	Outcome direction
Borgomaneri et al. (2020)	RCT, Single-blind, active (control site) and sham controlled	84/6	1.6/8 (23.9 ± 2.3) 5/9 (23.1 ± 2.6) 3/11 (21.6 ± 2.0) 8/6 (22.4 ± 3.7) 6/8 (23.2 ± 1.8) 6. 5/9 (24.4 ± 3.1)	Left and right dlPFC	F3 and F4	Online, during reconsolidation of fear memory	900/15 min	1 Hz/110% RMT/figure of 8	Room pictures/electrical shocks	60%	SCR, contingency ratings	Both l- and r- dlPFCrTMS -diminished expression of fear response - prevented return of fear response
Guhn et al. (2014)	RCT, Single-blind, sham controlled	85/2	Active group: 21/19 (23.9 ± 3.0); Sham: 22/23 (24.6 ± 4.5)	mPFC	Fpz	Offline, between acquisition and extinction	1,560/20 min	10 Hz/110% RMT/Round	Two male faces/scream	50%	SCR, FPS, fNIRS, and self-report scales	rTMS - enhanced fear extinction learning - Improved extinction recall
Raij et al. (2018)	Single-blind, active (control site) controlled	28/2	23/5 (28yo;19-51)	vmPFC	Left posterior PFCwith strong or weak vmPFC connectivity	Online, during extinction	28/4 trains, 7 pulses per train	20 Hz/100% RMT/figure of 8	Red, blue and yellow lights/Electrical shocks	62.5%	SCR	rTMS enhanced fear extinction recall