Exactly right! iTBS studies are ongoing and will definitely help us build out the picture.

While limited by the very small N=2 sample (in an epilepsy cohort!), this is intriguing evidence from direct in-vivo human recordings that depression treatment w/ TMS specifically affects the sgACC, in the direction of neural suppression. Next steps: Do we observe similar effects using iTBS?

Replicating findings from the fMRI literature, we also observed anticorrelated HFA between the DLPFC and sgACC following TMS pulses. The sgACC was particularly anticorrelated with the DLPFC relative to other brain regions (meaning, this relationship was anatomically specific and not brain-wide). 4/

Using combined TMS and intracranial EEG in two neurosurgical patients, we showed that single TMS pulses caused brief, transient suppression in high-frequency activity (HFA), generally considered to be reflected of population-level spiking. Sham stimulation showed no effect. 3/

A big (unanswered) question in the TMS field is: Does it matter that we hit the "right spot" on the DLPFC to treat depression? Many believe that we need to hit nodes of anticorrelated connectivity in order to suppress aberrant sgACC activity, but we're not sure if that actually happens. 2/

Agreed it's concerning, but p-values shouldn't be considered in isolation. I'd much rather see p=0.048 from a well-motivated, well-controlled study than p=0.0001 from a study/test with a terrible control or inappropriate null model.

Thought I didn't click it, been getting a ton of spam anyway, figured I accidentally clicked it...now I'm not so sure again.

I'm here, would be great to catch up!

Understandably so, given it's easier to operationalize sensation than it is something more integrative, global, and context-dependent like emotions.

Introspection isn't useless, but e.g. introspection did not teach us how the visual system worked and I'd argue if we had clung to introspection too tightly we'd still not understand vision as well as we do. Something like that might be happening with emotion research.

The underlying idea here I agree with is that hypotheses about emotions are at high risk of being framed more by introspection on the part of the researchers than prior objective evidence (but they'll go to great lengths to convince you -- and themselves! -- otherwise).

My favorite is PCR, which essentially underlies the entire trillion-dollar biotech industry. It grew out of (NSF funded) research on bacteria living in Yellowstone hot springs!

Wait, most blue state universities don't say anything publicly either! (At least in an institutional capacity.)