@ARTICLE{10.3389/fnins.2018.00400, AUTHOR={Rocchi, Lorenzo and Ibáñez, Jaime and Benussi, Alberto and Hannah, Ricci and Rawji, Vishal and Casula, Elias and Rothwell, John}, TITLE={Variability and Predictors of Response to Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation: A TMS-EEG Study}, JOURNAL={Frontiers in Neuroscience}, VOLUME={12}, PAGES={400}, YEAR={2018}, URL={https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2018.00400}, DOI={10.3389/fnins.2018.00400}, ISSN={1662-453X}, ABSTRACT={Continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) is a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation paradigm reported to decrease the excitability of the stimulated cortical area and which is thought to reflect a form of inhibitory synaptic plasticity. However, since its introduction, the effect of cTBS has shown a remarkable variability in its effects, which are often quantified by measuring the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Part of this inconsistency in experimental results might be due to an intrinsic variability of TMS effects caused by genetic or neurophysiologic factors. However, it is also possible that MEP only reflect the excitability of a sub-population of output neurons; resting EEG power and measures combining TMS and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) might represent a more thorough reflection of cortical excitability. The aim of the present study was to verify the robustness of several predictors of cTBS response, such as I wave recruitment and baseline MEP amplitude, and to test cTBS after-effects on multiple neurophysiologic measurements such as MEP, resting EEG power, local mean field power (LMFP), TMS-related spectral perturbation (TRSP), and inter-trial phase clustering (ITPC). As a result, we were not able to confirm either the expected decrease of MEP amplitude after cTBS or the ability of I wave recruitment and MEP amplitude to predict the response to cTBS. Resting EEG power, LMFP, TRSP, and ITPC showed a more consistent trend toward a decrease after cTBS. Overall, our data suggest that the effect of cTBS on corticospinal excitability is variable and difficult to predict with common electrophysiologic markers, while its effect might be clearer when probed with combined TMS and EEG.} }