Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Issue in progress
    • Issues by date
  • Sections
    • Editorial
    • Review
    • Research
    • Commentary
    • Psychopharmacology for the Clinician
    • Letters to the Editor
  • Topic Collections
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission checklist
    • Editorial policies
    • Publication fees
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Dr. Francis Wayne Quan Memorial Prize
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
JPN
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
JPN

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Issue in progress
    • Issues by date
  • Sections
    • Editorial
    • Review
    • Research
    • Commentary
    • Psychopharmacology for the Clinician
    • Letters to the Editor
  • Topic Collections
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission checklist
    • Editorial policies
    • Publication fees
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Dr. Francis Wayne Quan Memorial Prize
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow JPN on Twitter
Research Paper

Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction influences the sense of agency in healthy humans

Giuseppe A. Zito, Laura B. Anderegg, Kallia Apazoglou, René M. Müri, Roland Wiest, Martin grosse Holtforth and Selma Aybek
J Psychiatry Neurosci July 01, 2020 45 (4) 271-278; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.190099
Giuseppe A. Zito
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura B. Anderegg
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kallia Apazoglou
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
René M. Müri
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roland Wiest
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin grosse Holtforth
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Selma Aybek
From the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Anderegg, Müri, Holtforth, Aybek); the Support Centre for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Zito, Wiest); Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland (Apazoglou); the Perception and Eye Movement Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Biomedical Research, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (Müri); and the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (Holtforth)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: The sense of agency is an important aspect of motor control. Impaired sense of agency has been linked to several medical conditions, including schizophrenia and functional neurological disorders. A complex brain network subserves the sense of agency, and the right temporoparietal junction is one of its main nodes. In this paper, we tested whether transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction elicited behavioural changes in the sense of agency.

Methods: In experiment 1, 15 healthy participants performed a behavioural task during functional MRI, with the goal of localizing the area relevant for the sense of agency in the right temporoparietal junction. In the task, the movement of a cursor (controlled by the participants) was artificially manipulated, and the sense of agency was either diminished (turbulence) or enhanced (magic). In experiment 2, we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation in 20 healthy participants in a sham-controlled, crossover trial with excitatory, inhibitory or sham (vertex) stimulation. We measured the summary agency score, an indicator of the sense of agency (lower values correspond to diminished sense of agency).

Results: Experiment 1 revealed a peak of activation during agency manipulation in the right temporoparietal junction (Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates x, y, z: 68, −26, 34). Experiment 2 showed that inhibition of the right temporoparietal junction significantly reduced the summary agency score in both turbulence (from −14.4 ± 11.4% to −22.5 ± 8.9%), and magic (from −0.7 ± 5.8% to −4.4 ± 4.4%).

Limitations We found no excitatory effects, possibly because of a ceiling effect (because healthy participants have a normal sense of agency) or noneffectiveness of the excitatory protocol.

Conclusion: Our experiments showed that the network subserving the sense of agency was amenable to neuromodulation in healthy participants. This sets the ground for further research in patients with impaired sense of agency.

Clinical trial identification DRKS00012992 (German clinical trials registry).

Introduction

The sense of agency is a fundamental aspect of motor control that allows us to make judgments about whether we performed an action ourselves or not.1 An alteration in the sense of agency has been shown in several disorders, including functional neurological disorders,2 schizophrenia,3 delusions4 or Tourette syndrome;5 patients report a feeling of not being in control of their own actions.6

The sense of agency can be divided into 2 components:7 a low-level, unconscious implicit feeling of being an agent that occurs when actions are simply tagged as self-caused or not; and a higher-level, metacognitive agency in which explicit attributions of agency are made to oneself or another.8

Because of its subjective nature, measurement of both components of the sense of agency represents a methodological challenge.1 Previous research has focused mainly on measurements of implicit sense of agency and has developed well-known paradigms to investigate it, such as the Libet Clock Task9 or the Sensory Attenuation Task.10 The explicit sense of agency has received little attention, and current methods to investigate it typically consist of computer-based games, in which participants first perform a motor task and then explicitly evaluate their sense of control over it.11

Studies into the sense of agency have also focused on identifying the neurobiological network subserving agency.12 Results have shown an involvement of areas devoted to the motor system (ventral premotor cortex, supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas, cerebellum), as well as to cognition and multimodal information processing, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the posterior parietal cortex and the insula.4 In particular, a decrease in implicit sense of agency has been associated with hyperactivity in the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ).13 It has been hypothesized that the rTPJ is a key node of the so-called comparator model of agency,14 by which intended movements are compared with their actual consequences, and perceptual–motor mismatches are detected to generate the feeling that we are the agent of the performed action.15

In parallel to the advances in neuroimaging, interest has been growing in noninvasive brain stimulation methods because of their potential to modulate neural activity associated with specific cognitive functions.16 Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS),16 for instance, has shown successful outcomes in several domains, such as attention,17 visual perception18 or memory.19 In TMS, electromagnetic pulses are used to interfere with normal cortical processing, with consequent behavioural changes. Previous studies have shown modulatory effects of TMS on the sense of agency.20 For instance, several studies have reported that the sense of agency can be disrupted by single-pulse TMS applied to the left21 or right22 inferior parietal cortex, as well as by repetitive TMS over the right inferior parietal cortex at high frequency,23 or over the left superior parietal cortex at low frequency.24 A consensus across the studies has not been achieved yet, and a large variety of target areas and stimulation protocols has been proposed. One pitfall in previous studies was that the target area for TMS was often identified from existing literature, and the behavioural tasks used for target identification were generally different from the ones used to test the effects of stimulation. 22–24 For this reason, the authors could not guarantee that the area targeted by TMS was the same area responsible for the cognitive function being tested. Moreover, the behavioural effects of real TMS were not always distinct from sham stimulation,23 leaving open the possibility of a placebo effect.

To overcome these issues, we performed 2 experiments. First, we used functional MRI (fMRI) to localize the area responsible for the sense of agency in the rTPJ. Second, we applied TMS over this area and studied its modulatory effects on the sense of agency using the same behavioural paradigm used in the first experiment. We adopted a study design that evaluated both the inhibitory and excitatory effects of repetitive TMS, as well as enhanced and decreased sense of agency, in a sham (vertex)–controlled study. The main hypothesis for experiment 1 was that a cluster in the rTPJ activates in response to manipulation of the sense of agency. The main hypothesis for experiment 2 was that inhibitory TMS over the rTPJ would decrease the sense of agency, and excitatory TMS would increase it.

The ultimate translational goal of this study was to develop a TMS-based therapeutic intervention for patients with abnormal sense of agency.

Methods:

Experiment 1: localizer

Participants and ethical approval

Fifteen healthy volunteers (7 men, 8 women; mean age 27.7 ± 4.8 yr) participated in this experiment. All participants were naïve to the hypotheses of the study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age 16 years or older, and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Exclusion criteria were as follows: presence of metal clips in the body; history of actual or suspected epilepsy or alcohol or drug abuse; past surgery in the brain; implanted medical devices; and, for female participants, breast-feeding or pregnancy. None of the participants was taking any medication at the time of the study. We did not control specifically for birth control medications. The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and ethical approval was provided by the Ethics Committee of Canton Bern, Switzerland (number 2017–00997). We approached participants 1 week before the experiment, explained the study procedure and obtained written informed consent.

Test setup

The behavioural task used in this experiment was an adaptation of the game proposed by Metcalfe and Greene.11 Participants were shown a pattern of 13 targets and 13 distractors moving downward at a constant speed from the top of a computer screen (Appendix 1, Figure S1, available at jpn.ca/190099-a1). Their goal was to move a cursor on a horizontal bar by clicking on the right or left buttons of an input device with the hand they would normally use to control a computer mouse, and to touch all the targets while avoiding the distractors. After each repetition, participants were asked to rate their performance (judgment of performance; JoP) and their sense of control over the game (judgment of agency; JoA) separately on an 11-point Likert scale from −5 (low JoP/JoA) to +5 (high JoP/JoA). We presented different game phases. In the first, the cursor precisely followed the movement imposed by the input device (baseline). In the second, participants’ feeling of control was artificially reduced by adding random noise to the position of the cursor (turbulence) for 25% of the button clicks, so that the cursor did not always respond to the movement imposed by the participants. In the third, the radius that would count for a “hit” was larger than normal, so that participants were credited with touching a target even if they did not, increasing their performance and the feeling of control (magic).11 To provide visual feedback to the participants, the targets turned green when they were hit by the cursor, and the distractors turned red. As a control condition, participants watched targets and distractors streaming down without performing any button presses (pure visual). As well, participants were told that when the frame of the game was green, they were playing in “easy” mode, and when it was red, they were playing in “hard” mode. However, the actual difficulty did not change, regardless of colour. The duration of each repetition was 15 seconds. We administered a total of 62 repetitions in random order: 11 for baseline, 8 for turbulence and 8 for magic for each of the 2 game modes, as well as 8 for pure visual. Between the repetitions, a central fixation cross appeared for 2 seconds.

Experimental design and fMRI acquisition

Before entering the scanner, participants performed a practice session of the agency task. Once in the scanner, they performed a few more practice rounds, and then the actual session started.

Scans were acquired using a 3 T unit (Magnetom Prisma, Siemens) and a 20-channel head coil. We acquired fMRI data and 1 structural image in a single session. Image volumes consisted of trans-axial slices parallel to the bicommissural plane with a voxel size of 3.0 × 3.0 × 3.0 mm. We acquired fMRI data using an echo-planar imaging (EPI)–blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) sequence with the following parameters: repetition time 3000.00 ms, echo time 30.00 ms, flip angle 90°, field of view 192 mm, matrix size 64 × 64, number of acquisitions = 500 functional images. The scan protocol for structural MRI consisted of a T1-weighted, magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequence with the following parameters: repetition time 2330.00 ms, echo time 3.03 ms, flip angle 8°, voxel size 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 mm, parallel acquisition techniques factor = 2. During the session, participants were instructed to lie still, keep their hand on an input device with push buttons and use it to perform the agency task.

The duration of the experiment was 30 minutes: 5 minutes to prepare the participant for fMRI, 5 minutes to acquire the structural MRI and 20 minutes for the agency task.

Data analysis and statistics

We implemented the data analysis using statistical parametric mapping (SPM12; www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/).

We implemented image preprocessing as follows. We realigned images to the first image of the first run using iterative rigid-body transformations that minimized the residual sum of the square between the first and subsequent images, and co-registered them to the participants’ anatomic T1-weighted mean images. We then normalized images to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template (2D spline, voxel size 3 mm), and smoothed them using a Gaussian kernel with a full width at half maximum of 8.0 × 8.0 × 8.0 mm.

For each condition, we modelled a predicted BOLD response to each block with a boxcar function based on the onset and duration of the block convolved with the hemodynamic response function.

In the first-level analysis, we computed the single-participant contrasts for 6 regressors of interest, separated: baseline easy, baseline hard, turbulence easy, turbulence hard, magic easy, magic hard. We incorporated movement corrections (realignment parameters) as covariates (6 nuisance regressors). In the second-level (group) analysis, we implemented a flexible factorial design and random-effects statistics, 25 with all 6 regressors modelled as a single within-participant factor. Finally, to localize the brain areas active during manipulation of agency, we studied the effects of turbulence versus baseline, and magic versus baseline. Other contrasts (e.g., turbulence versus magic, hard versus easy) are not reported here, because they were not relevant to the scope of this study.

We thresholded statistical maps at cluster-forming thresholds of 100 voxels, and we applied a family-wise error correction threshold of 0.050 to peaks and clusters.

Experiment 2: transcranial magnetic stimulation

Participants and ethical approval

Twenty healthy volunteers (10 men, 10 women; mean age 26.3 ± 3.2) participated in this experiment. All participants were naïve to the hypotheses of the study and to the effects of TMS. The recruiting procedures, ethical protocol and inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to those of experiment 1.

Test setup

The agency task we used in experiment 2 was identical to that of experiment 1, except that participants were seated in front of a computer screen (22 inches; resolution 1680 × 1050 pixels) adapted in height to the level of their eyes.

To control for visual attentional levels, participants also performed a visual detection task.26 For this, they were positioned with their head on a chin and forehead rest 40 cm from the computer screen. While fixating a central cross on the screen, participants had to detect small stimuli that appeared briefly for 40 ms at 24° eccentricity from the fixation cross. The stimuli appeared on the left side, the right side, both sides simultaneously, or not at all. Participants were asked to react to this task as quickly as possible by pressing the mouse button that corresponded to the side on which the stimuli appeared, or on the central scroll when a stimulus appeared on both sides simultaneously. The size of the stimuli was defined as the individual detection threshold of each participant, measured at the beginning of the task.26 We presented a total of 70 repetitions — 20 with stimuli on the right, 20 on the left, 20 on both sides, and 10 with no stimuli — in random order.

Both the agency task and the visual detection task were programmed in Matlab.

Experimental design

This experiment was designed as a single blind, within-subject, vertex-controlled, randomized crossover trial (Appendix 1, Figure S2), with 3 different sessions separated from each other by at least 1 week. After a practice session of the agency task (as described above), the actual task started, followed by the visual detection task with its practice session.26 Then, we applied stimulation (inhibitory, excitatory or vertex stimulation, randomly assigned). Directly after the stimulation, participants performed the agency task and the visual detection task again. At the end of each measurement session, participants were asked about potential adverse effects of TMS, such as nausea, headache or trouble concentrating.27 The duration of each session was 70 minutes: 10 minutes for general assessment, 20 minutes for the first measurement, 20 minutes for the stimulation and 20 minutes for the second measurement.

The second and the third sessions were administered in the same way and took place at the same time of day. The order of the stimulation conditions in the respective sessions was assigned randomly and counterbalanced across participants (i.e., participants who received inhibitory stimulation in the first session received excitatory or vertex in the second, and vertex or excitatory in the third).

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

We administered TMS using a MagPro x100 TMS device (Medtronic Functional Diagnostics) with a MC-B70 butterfly coil. At the beginning of the first session, we measured the motor threshold of each participant using the relative frequency method.28 Then, we selected the target region for the stimulation according to the results of experiment 1, and corresponding to the right supramarginal cortex (MNI coordinates x, y, z: 62, −34, 30). We projected this target point onto the participant’s scalp using the method developed by Steinsträter and colleagues.29 This method has been used in other studies with noninvasive brain stimulation techniques where the individual head model was not available.30,31 We first matched the standard MNI head with the standard 10–20 EEG system by fitting a sphere on both coordinate systems. In this frame, a point described in MNI coordinates corresponds to a point inside the sphere. We projected this point onto the surface of the sphere and reported its coordinates as relative distance from the electroencephalogram (EEG) electrodes (Appendix 1, Figure S3A). We then used a real EEG cap to fit the projected point on the head of the participant (Appendix 1, Fig. S3B). The coil was positioned at a 45° angle toward the contralateral forehead. For vertex stimulation, the coil was positioned over Cz orthogonal to the forehead; this corresponded to stimulation over the interhemispheric fissure (i.e., a brain region not involved in the network of agency).

We based the stimulation patterns for inhibitory and excitatory TMS on continuous and intermittent theta burst stimulation (cTBS and iTBS), introduced by Huang and colleagues32 and modified by Nyffeler and colleagues33 (Appendix 1, Figures S4A and S4B). Briefly, we delivered 2 consecutive applications of cTBS (270 triplets at 30 Hz every 167 ms, for a total of 810 pulses), iTBS (270 triplets at 30 Hz every 167 ms, with an 8.33 s break every 10 triplets, for a total of 810 pulses) or vertex stimulation, with a 15-minute interval between the 2 applications, at an intensity of 80% of the resting motor threshold. Such a protocol has already been proven to extend the duration of the after-effects of TMS by several hours.33

Data analysis and statistics

For analysis of the agency task, we calculated the sense of agency as a summary agency score (SAS), computed from the median JoA and JoP for each game phase separately, and described as:

Embedded Image

where phase referred to either turbulence or magic.34 This index was negative for decreased agency, and close to zero when full agency was perceived. For the visual detection task, we measured the performance of each participant as the number of detected stimuli in the right, left and bilateral conditions.

We assessed the influence of TMS on the sense of agency using the SAS with repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and time (pre, post) × stimulation (cTBS, iTBS, vertex) × game (turbulence, magic) as within-subject factors. We tested the outcomes of the visual detection task with repeated-measures ANOVA and time × stimulation × location (right, left, bilateral). We used Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests for post hoc analyses.35 We calculated effect size as Cohen’s d.36 We analyzed data using STATISTICA 8.0 (StatSoft Inc.).

Results:

Experiment 1: localizer

The results of this experiment are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. Three main clusters were significantly activated in the contrast turbulence > baseline: 2 in the right frontal cortex (MNI coordinates x, y, z: 48, 20, 10 and 50, 40, 2), and 1 in the right supramarginal cortex (MNI coordinates x, y, z: 62, −34, 30). No significant cluster was activated in the contrast magic > baseline.

Fig. 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1

Experiment 1, fMRI results: contrast of turbulence versus baseline. Three main peaks of activation are visible in (A) the right supramarginal gyrus (Montreal Neurological Institute [MNI] coordinates: x, y, z = 62, −34, 30) and (B) the right inferior frontal gyrus (MNI coordinates: x, y, z = 48, 20, 10 and x, y, z = 50, 40, 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Experiment 1 — second-level group analysis for the contrast of turbulence versus baseline

Experiment 2: transcranial magnetic stimulation

The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of game: the SAS was significantly lower in the turbulence phase than in the magic phase (F1,19 = 59.55; p < 0.001; d = 3.54). Detailed results are shown in Figure 2.

Fig. 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2

Experiment 2 results. Summary agency score before and after continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and vertex stimulation, respectively. (A) Summary agency score for the turbulence phase. (B) Summary agency score for the magic phase. Bars represent mean values ± standard error of the mean. *Significant differences according to Tukey honestly significant difference (p < 0.05).

In addition, we found a significant effect of the interaction stimulation × time (F2,38 = 3.60; p = 0.037; d = 0.86). Tukey HSD tests revealed that the SAS significantly decreased after cTBS, from −14.4 ± 11.4% to −22.5 ± 8.9% during turbulence, and from −0.7 ± 5.8% to −4.4 ± 4.4% during magic. We observed no significant changes in the SAS for the iTBS and vertex conditions. Baseline values were not significantly different across stimulation conditions.

We found no significant pre/post differences in the visual detection task in any of the stimulation conditions.

All participants tolerated TMS well: 5 reported mild headache lasting for a few minutes, and 5 reported mild trouble concentrating.

Discussion

Brain areas sensitive to manipulation of agency

The results of experiment 1 showed that when the sense of agency was diminished (turbulence), 3 areas showed hyperactivity: 1 in the rTPJ and 2 in the right inferior frontal gyrus. These results were in line with previous work focusing on the neuronal correlates of sense of agency.13 In particular the rTPJ, as a key node of the comparator model of agency,15 has been found to play a role in detecting mismatches between intended and actual movements.

We recorded no specific brain activation in response to enhanced sense of agency (magic). This suggests that enhanced agency does not have a specific neural signature,37 and the network of agency becomes active only when the sense of agency is decreased.

Effects of TMS on the SAS

Our results showed that inhibitory cTBS decreased the sense of agency in healthy participants (Figure 2). This finding implied that TMS could be successfully used to manipulate the sense of agency when applied over the rTPJ, as identified in our fMRI localizer experiment (MNI coordinates x, y, z: 62, −34, 30). Stimulation over the vertex did not elicit behavioural changes, confirming that our results were not due to a placebo effect, but to a neuromodulatory effect of TMS on the network subserving the sense of agency. A possible alternative explanation of our findings is that TMS induced nonspecific modulatory effects on other cognitive processes in the right posterior parietal cortex, such as visual–spatial attention. 17,38 We addressed this issue by controlling for attentional changes with the visual detection task. Our results showed no difference in attentional levels before and after stimulation, confirming the modulatory effects of TMS specifically on the sense of agency, and not on visual attention.

Our results were in line with those of previous research showing behavioural effects of TMS over the parietal cortex in healthy participants.22–24 In particular, Ritterband-Rosenbaum and colleagues23 showed that 1 second of TMS at 10 Hz over the right inferior parietal cortex induced participants to experience self-controlled movements as externally perturbed. Similarly, MacDonald and colleagues24 found that 15 minutes of TMS at 0.6 Hz over the left superior parietal cortex impaired participants’ awareness of self-generated movements.

In this context, our study brings valuable new elements that increase the evidence of a neuromodulatory effect of TMS over the rTPJ. Previous research has investigated the sense of agency by asking participants whether they thought they were the cause of an action or not.22,23 Instead, we used a Likert scale to measure the sense of agency—a measure that provided not only the direction of the information but also the intensity39 — and this allowed us to measure fine changes in the sense of agency that forced-choice tasks (only direction) may not detect.

Another important behavioural finding of our study was that the sense of control over the game was decreased when the rTPJ was inhibited by TMS. Studies in functional neurologic disorders have shown that patients with hypoactivation in the rTPJ also exhibit decreased sense of agency.40 It is then possible that TMS induced a so-called virtual lesion in the rTPJ, a well-known phenomenon that disrupts task-related neuronal activity in healthy participants,41 simulating the behaviour of patients with pathological hypoactivity. In further research, a direct comparison between patients with reduced rTPJ activity and healthy participants with a virtual lesion in the rTPJ is needed.

Regarding the stimulation protocol, we chose to use 2 consecutive applications of 30 Hz TBS33 instead of 1 application of 50 Hz TBS,32 because previous research has already compared these 2 protocols and found that cTBS at 30 Hz induces stronger inhibitory after-effects in the motor evoked potentials, mainly because of a reduction in inter-participant variability. 42 It has also been shown that the effects of a single application of the 50 Hz protocol are abolished by subsequent voluntary contraction, whereas paired cTBS at 10-minute intervals induced changes in motor evoked potentials that were more resistant.43 For iTBS, we showed that excitatory iTBS produced no behavioural effects, in opposition to our hypothesis. This lack of improvement in the sense of agency might suggest an “enhancement ceiling effect”: that is, the sense of agency of cognitively intact healthy participants cannot be enhanced over their own performance ceiling.44,45 However, an alternative explanation is that the iTBS protocol itself did not elicit any effect. This hypothesis is plausible, because other studies showed that the iTBS protocol had a small effect size and outcomes of large variability,46 often visible only at physiologic levels.32

Limitations

Our study had some limitations. We designed our sample size for experiment 1 based on previous research investigating the sense of agency with neuroimaging techniques,14,47–53 in particular with a study using a similar fMRI task to ours,13 but this sample might not have been representative of the entire population. We did not calculate the effect size of our neuroimaging data because, as stated by Reddan and colleagues,54 standard methods to estimate effect size in neuroimaging studies tend to create bias, which in turn overrate the real effect size. This could have been relevant especially in the magic contrast, where we found no significant cluster of activation. For experiment 2, we calculated the effect size and found that Cohen’s d was 0.86 for our main results on the effects of TMS, which can be considered large.36 We did not use online neuronavigation to place the TMS coil over the target area. This might have affected the results, especially during iTBS, where the coil had to be held in place for more than 4 minutes. However, the results of experiment 1 evidenced a large cluster of activity in the rTPJ of a few square centimetres and, given the 5 cm2 focality of the coil used in our study,55 we decided that a precision in the range of millimetres, potentially achieved with neuronavigation, was not needed. Moreover, the localization method we chose29 has high spatial accuracy56–58 and thus ensured that our target was within the desired cluster.

Another limitation — related to the hypothesis that excitatory iTBS would enhance the sense of agency (which we were unable to show) — was our sample size. The negative findings we reported may have been due to a lack of power. We chose not to increase our sample size, because our study had sufficient power to show a significant effect of inhibitory cTBS. As well, these negative findings could be explained by the fact that the protocol we used has been tested only on cTBS,33 and its iTBS version might not have been effective. Moreover, as stated in the discussion, the inclusion of only healthy participants could have led to a ceiling effect.

In future research, we aim to compare participants with and without decreased sense of agency (such as those with functional neurological disorders) and study the ceiling hypothesis.

Conclusion:

Our results confirmed that one of the key areas for agency processing is the rTPJ and demonstrated that stimulation over that node induced behavioural changes in the sense of agency. Inhibitory cTBS decreased the sense of agency, and we interpreted these findings as modulatory effects of TMS specifically on the sense of agency, because this effect was not seen in the vertex condition. We provided evidence that the rTPJ plays a key role in detecting mismatches between intended action and sensory feedback, in line with the comparator model of agency. Future studies should look at the precise role of the other frontal areas evidenced by experiment 1, which could represent other potential targets for TMSinduced manipulation of agency.

Our study provides solid background for future research aiming at developing new treatment options, based on neuromodulation of the sense of agency by means of TMS, for patients with impairments in agency processing.59–62

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Fondation Leenaards, the University Hospital Inselspital Bern and the University of Bern for their support and thank all the study participants.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: R. Müri declares funding from the Swiss National Foundation, outside of the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

  • Contributors: G. Zito, R. Müri, R. Wiest, M. Holtforth and S. Aybek designed the study. G. Zito and L. Anderegg acquired the data, which G. Zito, K. Apazoglou, R. Müri, R. Wiest, M. Holtforth and S. Aybek analyzed. G. Zito and S. Aybek wrote the article, which all authors reviewed. All authors approved the final version to be published and can certify that no other individuals not listed as authors have made substantial contributions to the paper.

  • Received May 21, 2019.
  • Revision received October 9, 2019.
  • Accepted November 11, 2019.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Haggard P,
    2. Chambon V
    .Sense of agency.Curr Biol 2012;22:R390–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Stone J,
    2. Carson A
    .Functional neurologic disorders.Continuum (Minneap Minn) 2015;213 Behavioral Neurology and Neuropsychiatry818–37.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Voss M,
    2. Chambon V,
    3. Wenke D,
    4. et al
    .In and out of control: brain mechanisms linking fluency of action selection to self-agency in patients with schizophrenia.Brain 2017;140:2226–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Haggard P
    .Sense of agency in the human brain.Nat Rev Neurosci 2017;18:196–207.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Delorme C,
    2. Salvador A,
    3. Voon V,
    4. et al
    .Illusion of agency in patients with Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome.Cortex 2016;77:132–40.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Jeannerod M
    .The sense of agency and its disturbances in schizophrenia: a reappraisal.Exp Brain Res 2009;192:527–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Synofzik M,
    2. Vosgerau G,
    3. Newen A
    .Beyond the comparator model: a multifactorial two-step account of agency.Conscious Cogn 2008;17:219–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Moore JW,
    2. Middleton D,
    3. Haggard P,
    4. et al
    .Exploring implicit and explicit aspects of sense of agency.Conscious Cogn 2012;21:1748–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Libet B,
    2. Gleason CA,
    3. Wright EW,
    4. et al
    .Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential) the unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act.Brain 1983;106:623–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Dewey JA,
    2. Knoblich G
    .Do implicit and explicit measures of the sense of agency measure the same thing?.PLoS One 2014;9:e110118
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Metcalfe J,
    2. Greene MJ
    .Metacognition of agency.J Exp Psychol Gen 2007;136:184–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. David N,
    2. Newen A,
    3. Vogeley K
    .The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms.Conscious Cogn 2008;17:523–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Miele DB,
    2. Wager TD,
    3. Mitchell JP,
    4. et al
    .Dissociating neural correlates of action monitoring and metacognition of agency.J Cogn Neurosci 2011;23:3620–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Farrer C,
    2. Frey SH,
    3. Van Horn JD,
    4. et al
    .The angular gyrus computes action awareness representations.Cereb Cortex 2008;18:254–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Wolpert DM,
    2. Ghahramani Z,
    3. Jordan MI
    .An internal model for sensorimotor integration.Science 1995;269:1880–2.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Nahas Z
    .Handbook of transcranial magnetic stimulation.J Psychiatry Neurosci 2003;28:373–75.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Cazzoli D,
    2. Rosenthal CR,
    3. Kennard C,
    4. et al
    .Theta burst stimulation improves overt visual search in spatial neglect independently of attentional load.Cortex 2015;73:317–29.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Nyffeler T,
    2. Müri R,
    3. Pflugshaupt T,
    4. et al
    .Cortical reorganization after brain damage: the oculomotor model.Eur J Neurosci 2006;23:1397–402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Rogasch NC,
    2. Daskalakis ZJ,
    3. Fitzgerald PB
    .Cortical inhibition of distinct mechanisms in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is related to working memory performance: a TMS–EEG study.Cortex 2015;64:68–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Crivelli D,
    2. Balconi M
    .The agent brain: a review of non-invasive brain stimulation studies on sensing agency.Front Behav Neurosci 2017;11:229
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Chambon V,
    2. Moore JW,
    3. Haggard P
    .TMS stimulation over the inferior parietal cortex disrupts prospective sense of agency.Brain Struct Funct 2015;220:3627–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Preston C,
    2. Newport R
    .Misattribution of movement agency following right parietal TMS.Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2008;3:26–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ritterband-Rosenbaum A,
    2. Karabanov AN,
    3. Christensen MS,
    4. et al
    .10 Hz rTMS over right parietal cortex alters sense of agency during self-controlled movements.Front Hum Neurosci 2014;8:471
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. MacDonald PA,
    2. Paus T
    .The role of parietal cortex in awareness of self-generated movements: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study.Cereb Cortex 2003;13:962–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Penny W,
    2. Holmes A
    .Random effects analysis.Statistical parametric mapping: the analysis of functional brain imagesLondonAcademic Press2007156–65.
  26. ↵
    1. Hilgetag CC,
    2. Théoret H,
    3. Pascual-Leone A
    .Enhanced visual spatial attention ipsilateral to rTMS-induced ‘virtual lesions’ of human parietal cortex.Nat Neurosci 2001;4:953–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Rossi S,
    2. Hallett M,
    3. Rossini PM,
    4. et al
    .Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.Clin Neurophysiol 2009;120:2008–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Groppa S,
    2. Oliviero A,
    3. Eisen A,
    4. et al
    .A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee.Clin Neurophysiol 2012;123:858–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Steinsträter O,
    2. Sommer J,
    3. Deppe M,
    4. et al.
    (2002) The Münster T2T-Converter (Klinik für Neurologie mit Institut für Translationale Neurologie, Munich).
  30. ↵
    1. Ulm L,
    2. McMahon K,
    3. Copland D,
    4. et al
    .Neural mechanisms underlying perilesional transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia: a feasibility study.Front Hum Neurosci 2015;9:550
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Nihonsugi T,
    2. Ihara A,
    3. Haruno M
    .Selective increase of intentionbased economic decisions by noninvasive brain stimulation to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.J Neurosci 2015;35:3412–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Huang Y-Z,
    2. Edwards MJ,
    3. Rounis E,
    4. et al
    .Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex.Neuron 2005;45:201–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Nyffeler T,
    2. Wurtz P,
    3. Lüscher HR,
    4. et al
    .Extending lifetime of plastic changes in the human brain.Eur J Neurosci 2006;24:2961–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Metcalfe J,
    2. Eich TS,
    3. Castel AD
    .Metacognition of agency across the lifespan.Cognition 2010;116:267–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Tukey JW
    .Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance.Biometrics 1949;5:99–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Cohen J
    (2013) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Academic Press, London).
  37. ↵
    1. Hohwy J
    .The sense of self in the phenomenology of agency and perception.Psyche (Stuttg) 2007;13:1–20.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Constantinidis C
    .Posterior parietal mechanisms of visual attention.Rev Neurosci 2006;17:415–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Matell MS,
    2. Jacoby J
    .Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity.Educ Psychol Meas 1971;31:657–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Aybek S,
    2. Vuilleumier P
    .Imaging studies of functional neurologic disorders.Handbook of clinical neurologyAmsterdamElsevier201673–84.
  41. ↵
    1. Ziemann U
    .TMS in cognitive neuroscience: virtual lesion and beyond.Cortex 2010;46:124–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Goldsworthy MR,
    2. Pitcher JB,
    3. Ridding MC
    .A comparison of two different continuous theta burst stimulation paradigms applied to the human primary motor cortex.Clin Neurophysiol 2012;123:2256–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Goldsworthy MR,
    2. Müller-Dahlhaus F,
    3. Ridding MC,
    4. et al
    .Resistant against de-depression: LTD-like plasticity in the human motor cortex induced by spaced cTBS.Cereb Cortex 2015;25:1724–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Hoy KE,
    2. Bailey N,
    3. Michael M,
    4. et al
    .Enhancement of working memory and task-related oscillatory activity following intermittent theta burst stimulation in healthy controls.Cereb Cortex 2016;26:4563–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Anderkova L,
    2. Pizem D,
    3. Klobusiakova P,
    4. et al
    .Theta burst stimulation enhances connectivity of the dorsal attention network in young healthy subjects: an exploratory study.Neural Plast 2018;20183106918
  46. ↵
    1. Chung SW,
    2. Hill AT,
    3. Rogasch NC,
    4. et al
    .Use of theta-burst stimulation in changing excitability of motor cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016;63:43–64.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Balslev D,
    2. Nielsen FÅ,
    3. Lund TE,
    4. et al
    .Similar brain networks for detecting visuo-motor and visuo-proprioceptive synchrony.Neuroimage 2006;31:308–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. David N,
    2. Cohen MX,
    3. Newen A,
    4. et al
    .The extrastriate cortex distinguishes between the consequences of one’s own and others’ behavior.Neuroimage 2007;36:1004–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Farrer C,
    2. Frith CD
    .Experiencing oneself vs another person as being the cause of an action: the neural correlates of the experience of agency.Neuroimage 2002;15:596–603.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kontaris I,
    2. Wiggett AJ,
    3. Downing PE
    .Dissociation of extrastriate body and biological-motion selective areas by manipulation of visual-motor congruency.Neuropsychologia 2009;47:3118–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Leube DT,
    2. Knoblich G,
    3. Erb M,
    4. et al
    .Observing one’s hand become anarchic: an fMRI study of action identification.Conscious Cogn 2003;12:597–608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Matsuzawa M,
    2. Matsuo K,
    3. Sugio T,
    4. et al
    .Temporal relationship between action and visual outcome modulates brain activation: an fMRI study.Magn Reson Med Sci 2005;4:115–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Schnell K,
    2. Heekeren K,
    3. Schnitker R,
    4. et al
    .An fMRI approach to particularize the frontoparietal network for visuomotor action monitoring: detection of incongruence between test subjects’ actions and resulting perceptions.Neuroimage 2007;34:332–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Reddan MC,
    2. Lindquist MA,
    3. Wager TD
    .Effect size estimation in neuroimaging.JAMA Psychiatry 2017;74:207–8.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Deng Z-D,
    2. Lisanby SH,
    3. Peterchev AV
    .Electric field depth–focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs.Brain Stimul 2013;6:1–13.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Braet W,
    2. Humphreys G
    .Case mixing and the right parietal cortex: evidence from rTMS.Exp Brain Res 2006;168:265–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Zanon M,
    2. Battaglini PP,
    3. Jarmolowska J,
    4. et al
    .Long-range neural activity evoked by premotor cortex stimulation: a TMS/EEG coregistration study.Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:803
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Busan P,
    2. Zanon M,
    3. Vinciati F,
    4. et al
    .Transcranial magnetic stimulation and preparation of visually-guided reaching movements.Front Neuroeng 2012;5:18
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Lehn A,
    2. Gelauff J,
    3. Hoeritzauer I,
    4. et al
    .Functional neurological disorders: mechanisms and treatment.J Neurol 2016;263:611–20.
    OpenUrl
    1. Späti J,
    2. Chumbley J,
    3. Doerig N,
    4. et al
    .Valence and agency influence striatal response to feedback in patients with major depressive disorder.J Psychiatry Neurosci 2015;40:394
    OpenUrl
    1. Radhu N,
    2. Ravindran LN,
    3. Levinson AJ,
    4. et al
    .Inhibition of the cortex using transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatric populations: current and future directions.J Psychiatry Neurosci 2012;37:369–78.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Paus T,
    2. Barrett J
    .Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the human frontal cortex: implications for repetitive TMS treatment of depression.J Psychiatry Neurosci 2004;29:268
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience: 45 (4)
J Psychiatry Neurosci
Vol. 45, Issue 4
1 Jul 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JPN.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction influences the sense of agency in healthy humans
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JPN
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JPN web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction influences the sense of agency in healthy humans
Giuseppe A. Zito, Laura B. Anderegg, Kallia Apazoglou, René M. Müri, Roland Wiest, Martin grosse Holtforth, Selma Aybek
J Psychiatry Neurosci Jul 2020, 45 (4) 271-278; DOI: 10.1503/jpn.190099

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right temporoparietal junction influences the sense of agency in healthy humans
Giuseppe A. Zito, Laura B. Anderegg, Kallia Apazoglou, René M. Müri, Roland Wiest, Martin grosse Holtforth, Selma Aybek
J Psychiatry Neurosci Jul 2020, 45 (4) 271-278; DOI: 10.1503/jpn.190099
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Manuscript Submission Checklist

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1180-4882.

All editorial matter in JPN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.
To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].
View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire