The concept of interhemispheric competition has been very influential in attention research, and the occurrence of biased attention due to an imbalance in posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is well documented. In this context, the vast majority of studies have assessed attentional performance with tasks that did not include an explicit experimental manipulation of attention, and, as a consequence, it remains largely unknown how these findings relate to core attentional constructs such as endogenous and exogenous control and spatial orienting and reorienting. We here addressed this open question by creating an imbalance between left and right PPC with transcranial direct current stimulation, resulting in right-hemispheric dominance, and assessed performance on three experimental paradigms that isolate distinct attentional processes. The comparison between active and sham transcranial direct current stimulations revealed a highly informative pattern of results with differential effects across tasks. Our results demonstrate the functional necessity of PPC for endogenous and exogenous attentional control and, importantly, link the concept of interhemispheric competition to core attentional processes, thus moving beyond the notion of biased attention after noninvasive brain stimulation over PPC.

We combined patterned TMS with EMG in several sessions of a within-subject design to assess and characterize intraindividual reliability and interindividual variability of TMS-induced neuroplasticity mechanisms in the healthy brain. Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) was applied over M1 to induce long-term potentiation-like mechanisms as assessed by changes in corticospinal excitability. Furthermore, we investigated the association between the observed iTBS effects and individual differences in prolonged measures of corticospinal excitability. Our results show that iTBS-induced measures of neuroplasticity suffer from high variability between individuals within a single assessment visit and from low reliability within individuals across two assessment visits. This indicates that both group and individual effects of iTBS on corticospinal excitability cannot be assumed to be reliable and therefore need to be interpreted with caution, at least when measured by changes in the amplitudes of motor-evoked potentials.

The ability of inhibiting impulsive urges is paramount for human behavior. Such successful response inhibition has consistently been associated with activity in pFC. The current study aims to unravel the differential involvement of different areas within right pFC for successful action restraint versus action cancellation. These two conceptually different aspects of action inhibition were measured with a go/no-go task (action restraint) and a stop signal task (action cancellation). Localization of relevant prefrontal activation was based on fMRI data. Significant task-related activation during successful action restraint was localized for each participant individually in right anterior insula (rAI), right superior frontal gyrus, and pre-SMA. Activation during successful action cancellation was localized in rAI, right middle frontal gyrus, and pre-SMA. Subsequently, fMRI-guided continuous thetaburst stimulation was applied to these regions. Results showed that the disruption of neural activity in rAI reduced both the ability to restrain (go/no-go) and cancel (stop signal) responses. In contrast, continuous thetaburst stimulation-induced disruption of the right superior frontal gyrus specifically impaired the ability to restrain from responding (go/no-go), while leaving the ability for action cancellation largely intact. Stimulation applied to right middle frontal gyrus and pre-SMA did not affect inhibitory processing in neither of the two tasks. These findings provide a more comprehensive perspective on the role of pFC in inhibition and cognitive control. The results emphasize the role of inferior frontal regions for global inhibition, whereas superior frontal regions seem to be specifically relevant for successful action restraint.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a tool for inducing transient disruptions of neural activity noninvasively in conscious human volunteers. In recent years, the investigative domain of TMS has expanded and now encompasses causal structure–function relationships across the whole gamut of cognitive functions and associated cortical brain regions. Consequently, the importance of how to determine the target stimulation site has increased and a number of alternative methods have emerged. Comparison across studies is precluded because different studies necessarily use different tasks, sites, TMS conditions, and have different goals. Here, therefore, we systematically compare four commonly used TMS coil positioning approaches by using them to induce behavioral change in a single cognitive study. Specifically, we investigated the behavioral impact of right parietal TMS during a number comparison task, while basing TMS localization either on (i) individual fMRI-guided TMS neuronavigation, (ii) individual MRI-guided TMS neuronavigation, (iii) group functional Talairach coordinates, or (iv) 10–20 EEG position P4. We quantified the exact behavioral effects induced by TMS using each approach, calculated the standardized experimental effect sizes, and conducted a statistical power analysis in order to calculate the optimal sample size required to reveal statistical significance. Our findings revealed a systematic difference between the four approaches, with the individual fMRI-guided TMS neuronavigation yielding the strongest and the P4 stimulation approach yielding the smallest behavioral effect size. Accordingly, power analyses revealed that although in the fMRI-guided neuronavigation approach five participants were sufficient to reveal a significant behavioral effect, the number of necessary participants increased to n = 9 when employing MRI-guided neuronavigation, to n = 13 in case of TMS based on group Talairach coordinates, and to n = 47 when applying TMS over P4. We discuss these graded effect size differences in light of the revealed interindividual variances in the actual target stimulation site within and between approaches.