The influential notion that the hippocampus supports associative memory by interacting with functionally distinct and distributed brain regions has not been directly tested in humans. We therefore used targeted noninvasive electromagnetic stimulation to modulate human cortical-hippocampal networks and tested effects of this manipulation on memory. Multi-session stimulation increased functional connectivity among distributed cortical-hippocampal network regions and concomitantly improved associative memory performance. These alterations involved localized long-term plasticity, because increases were highly selective to the targeted brain regions, and enhancements of connectivity and associative memory persisted for ~24 hours following stimulation. Targeted cortical-hippocampal networks can thus be enhanced noninvasively, demonstrating their role in associative memory.

Background and Purpose― We aimed to determine whether low-frequency electric field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex versus sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation avoiding motor cortex could improve arm motor function in hemiplegic stroke patients when combined with motor training. Methods― Twelve outpatient US rehabilitation centers enrolled participants between May 2014 and December 2015. We delivered 1 Hz active or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex before each of eighteen 60-minute therapy sessions over a 6-week period, with outcomes measured at 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after end of treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of participants improving ≥5 points on upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score 6 months after end of treatment. Secondary analyses assessed changes on the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer and Action Research Arm Test and Wolf Motor Function Test and safety. Results― Of 199 participants, 167 completed treatment and follow-up because of early discontinuation of data collection. Upper extremity Fugl-Meyer gains were significant for experimental ( P <0.001) and sham groups ( P <0.001). Sixty-seven percent of the experimental group (95% CI, 58%–75%) and 65% of sham group (95% CI, 52%–76%) improved ≥5 points on 6-month upper extremity Fugl-Meyer ( P =0.76). There was also no difference between experimental and sham groups in the Action Research Arm Test ( P =0.80) or the Wolf Motor Function Test ( P =0.55). A total of 26 serious adverse events occurred in 18 participants, with none related to the study or device, and with no difference between groups. Conclusions― Among patients 3 to 12 months poststroke, goal-oriented motor rehabilitation improved motor function 6 months after end of treatment. There was no difference between the active and sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation trial arms. Clinical Trial Registration― URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089464.

What are the neuroplastic mechanisms that allow some stroke patients to regain high quality control of their paretic leg, while others do not? One theory implicates ipsilateral corticospinal pathways projecting from the non-lesioned hemisphere. We devised a new transcranial magnetic stimulation protocol to identify ipsilateral corticospinal tract conductivity from the non-lesioned hemisphere to the paretic limb in chronic stroke patients. We also assessed corticospinal tract degeneration using diffusion tensor imaging and used an ankle tracking task to assess lower limb motor control. We found greater tracking error during antiphase bilateral ankle movement for patients with strong conductivity from the non-lesioned hemisphere to paretic ankle than those with weak or no conductivity. These findings suggest that, instead of assisting motor control, contributions to lower limb motor control from the non-lesioned hemisphere of some stroke survivors may be maladaptive.

Neuroimaging and lesion studies have implicated specific prefrontal cortex locations in subjective memory awareness. Based on this evidence, a rostrocaudal organization has been proposed whereby increasingly anterior prefrontal regions are increasingly involved in memory awareness. We used theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation (TBS) to temporarily modulate dorsolateral versus frontopolar prefrontal cortex to test for distinct causal roles in memory awareness. In three sessions, participants received TBS bilaterally to frontopolar cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or a control location prior to performing an associative-recognition task involving judgments of memory awareness. Objective memory performance (i.e., accuracy) did not differ based on stimulation location. In contrast, frontopolar stimulation significantly influenced several measures of memory awareness. During study, judgments of learning were more accurate such that lower ratings were given to items that were subsequently forgotten selectively following frontopolar TBS. Confidence ratings during test were also higher for correct trials following frontopolar TBS. Finally, trial-by-trial correspondence between overt performance and subjective awareness during study demonstrated a linear increase across control, dorsolateral, and frontopolar TBS locations, supporting a rostrocaudal hierarchy of prefrontal contributions to memory awareness. These findings indicate that frontopolar cortex contributes causally to memory awareness, which was improved selectively by anatomically targeted TBS.