Impact of Theta Burst Stimulation Over the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Language Switching and Cognitive Flexibility
Phase: NA
Conditions: Languages
Sponsor: Jean-Marie Annoni

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
1 
 
 
Title of the study: Effect of stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on language 
production (study A) and motor control (study B)  
 
Principal investigator: 
Prof. Jean-Marie Annoni 
 
Study A) Effect of stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on language 
production in healthy bilinguals – Second addendum 
 
Background:  
Language relies on two main neurocognitive components; a dedicated language network 
depending on perisylvian structures, and a domain-general control-executive and working 
memory system relying on prefrontal, particularly left cingulum and dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex 
(DLPFC) networks. The executive system is known to participate in language control in 
bilinguals, but also plays a role in many intra-languages processing, for mother language (L1) 
and even more in second language production (L2). For instance, the lexical access in L2 
requires more left frontal activation than in L1. The integrity of language control has been 
associated with a parallel recovery of L1 and L2 in aphasia in bilinguals (Green et al., 2010 [1]) 
and increased connectedness of the control and language networks has been associated to L2 
recovery after therapy (Abutalebi et al., 2009 [2]).  
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is increasingly being used as promising 
therapeutic tool for psychiatric and neurological diseases as well as a valuable tool for 
neuroscientists investigating underlying mechanisms of cognitive functions (Machii et al., 2005 
[3], Lefaucheur et al., 2014 [4]). Several studies investigating healthy or clinical populations have 
shown that (r)TMS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has an effect on 
language-related processes such as verbal working memory (Osaka et al., 2007 [5]), sentence 
comprehension (Cotelli et al., 2011 [6]) and language switching (Holtzheimer et al., 2005 [7], 
Nardone et al., 2011 [8]).  
Clinical observations and neuroimaging studies seem to confirm the role of executive functions 
and frontal structures in language processing in monolingual and bilingual subjects (e.g. Fabbro 
et al., 2000 [9], Abutalebi & Green 2007 [10]). However, there are only few studies investigating 
the effect of rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex on language processes such as verbal 
working memory and switching, for which executive functions seem to be crucial. 
 
Aim:  
The aim of the present project is to demonstrate the impact of the modulation of executive 
functions, particularly subserved by DLPFC, on language production in healthy bilingual. We 
propose that such impact will be particularly present in non-native languages (L2). 
The project will tackle the question of the role of prefrontal system and executive functioning 
(namely updating/working memory system, subserved by the left DLPFC) in language 
performance in the L1 and in L2. The core question will be whether stimulation of DLPFC will 
influence lexical access and language production.  
 
The experimental task will test the impact of prefrontal stimulation by rTMS (excitatory, 
inhibitory, sham) applied to the DLPFC of healthy adult bilingual subjects during two tasks 
relying on lexical strategies: a picture naming task in L1 and L2 and a word translation task. The 
EEG correlates of the two tasks performed in the first and second language following rTMS will 
be analyzed. The EEG study will allow us to investigate precisely the spatiotemporal brain 
dynamics underlying the behavioral modifications induced by the modulation of left frontal areas. 

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
2 
 
The hypothesis is that: 
1. Excitatory rTMS applied to the left DLPFC will increase performance and/or decrease 
response time in naming, particularly in L2 naming and in the translation task versus 
sham and inhibitory rTMS.  
2. Excitatory rTMS is expected to modify the cortical activity related to the language tasks. 
During naming, EEG analyses will show a main effect of stimulation and an interaction 
between the factors Language (L1 or L2) and Stimulation (excitatory rTMS versus sham 
and inhibitory rTMS versus sham) at the topographic level, showing an effect of 
prefrontal areas larger in L2 than L1. The latency of the ERP modulation by rTMS in L2 
will allow us to target the dynamics and the language planning processes) underlying 
improved naming performance.   
 
 
Methods:  
The experimental task will include 80 healthy L1-L2 unbalanced control subjects. We will 
analyze the influence of the DLPFC activation and inhibition on naming and complex language 
production task (i.e. translation ability) using rTMS as well as their EEG correlates in L1 and in 
their best second language (L2). The prediction is that left prefrontal stimulation will increase 
language performances particularly in L2. EEG analyses will unravel the spatio-temporal 
dynamics of executive processes involved in the two tasks.  
 
EEG 
EEG is a direct non-invasive technique for recording of the electrical activity produced by 
neurons over the scalp with a high temporal resolution. EEG recordings recording is obtained by 
placing electrodes on the scalp, with a conductive gel filling the distance between electrode and 
scalp. The electrodes are then connected to an amplifier to amplify and convert the signals as 
digital voltage values. The event-related potentials will be processed/analyzed offline. A 64 
channel Biosemi ActiveTwo system will be used for the recordings.      
 
rTMS 
TMS is a painless and non-invasive method of brain stimulation which has gained considerable 
interest worldwide for clinical as well as neuro-scientific use. Applying TMS leads to neuronal 
depolarization which has an excitatory or inhibitory effect on the cortex (Rothwell, 1997 [11]). By 
using changes in magnetic fields to create electric currents, TMS allows modulating cortical 
excitability and as such stimulating focal brain areas (Walsh & Pascual-Leone, 2003 [12]). 
Depending on the frequency, intensity and duration of the stimulation, repetitive TMS (rTMS) can 
lead to temporary increases or decreases in excitability of the affected cortex, which have been 
shown to last for several minutes beyond the duration of the stimulation itself (Lefaucheur et al., 
2014 [4]). 
Sham rTMS (or placebo rTMS) refers to a control condition in which no physiological effect on 
the targeted cortical region should occur. For sham rTMS it is important, that the subject is not 
aware that he/she is receiving a placebo-stimulation. As such, placebo rTMS needs to fulfill a 
number of criteria (Loo et al., 2000 [13]) so that it has no effect on the targeted cortical region 
while at the same time appearing as similar as possible to real rTMS. 
 
By comparing the results in subjects receiving sham rTMS with the results of subjects receiving 
excitatory or inhibitory rTMS, researchers can determine how much of an effect is caused by 
rTMS, rather than by a potential placebo effect.  
 
Language proficiency assessment 
The participants should have an intermediate level of English knowledge (based on a self-

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
3 
 
evaluation questionnaire and DIALANG) 
To assess language immersion, participants will be asked for the age of acquisition, how long 
they lived in a region where predominantly German and English language was spoken, the 
language spoken with family members, when they were child, in their current daily life, and if the 
language was acquired in or out of school. With regards to the self-evaluation part, participants 
will indicate in an analogue scale from 1 to 100% how they estimate their reading, speaking, 
comprehension and writing skills. As a third level of assessment, a sub-test from the computer-
based DIALANG language diagnosis system (Zhang and Thompson, 2004 [14]) will be used to 
evaluate reading performance (see Buetler et al 2014 for a similar procedure [15]).  
 
Procedure 
Participants will be randomized to take part in either an inhibitory or excitatory rTMS session. 
In all sessions, the same evaluations/tasks will be used. Each session starts with sham rTMS-
controlled baseline tasks.  
At the beginning of the session, the individual motor threshold for the subject’s relaxed small 
hand muscles will be determined by stimulating the right motor cortex with single pulses (e.g. 
Nyffeler et al., 2008 [16]). This will last about 5-10 minutes. For the rTMS session, we will be 
using a “theta-burst” rTMS protocol (Nyffeler et al., 2008 [16]; Huang et al., 2005 [17]), in which 
one of the co-applicants has extensive experience. This stimulation takes 30 seconds to 5 
minutes and the resulting effects have been shown to last about 30 minutes. Each rTMS session 
will be conducted following suggested international rTMS guidelines (Wassermann et al., 1998 
[18]). 
After applying rTMS, two language tasks will be performed by the participants while an EEG 
will be recorded. The two language contexts (German and English) will be presented within each 
of the two sessions in a randomized order. EEG electrodes will be applied before the stimulation. 
Participants will be seated in an electrically shielded and sound attenuated booth in front of a 
LCD screen. Stimulus delivery and response recording are controlled using E-Prime 2.0 
(Psychology Tools, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA). The stimuli will be presented in the center of the 
screen. Both behavioral and EEG data will be recorded.  
 
Stimuli and tasks  
 
This study will be conducted in parallel to the previously accepted study A. For this second 
addendum, there will be no translation task and a different non-verbal task. 
 
Verbal and nonverbal switching task during EEG recording 
Right after applying rTMS (inhibitory/excitatory/sham), participants will perform a language 
switching task during the EEG recording. The switching task will be based on a corpus of 520 
pictures, the corresponding words being matched in English and German on pertinent 
psycholinguistic factors (Bates et al 2003 [19]). The stimuli consist of black and white line 
drawings (of 8.5 x 8.5cm each) representing manufactured or living objects. Right before the 
picture appears on the screen, a cue will be given to the participants in order to indicate the 
language in which they have to name the object. The subject will then have 3500 - 4500 ms to 
name the object.  
Moreover, participants will also perform a non-verbal switching task during the EEG 
recording. In this task, participants have to switch frequently between high/low and odd/even 
classifications of a digit, based on the method of Monsell, Sumner and Waters (2003) Before 
each digit appears, a cue will be given to indicate to which classification criteria participants have 
to respond.  
 
Translation task to L1 and L2 during EEG recording 

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
4 
 
Moreover, participants will perform a task consisting of translating 100 words (5 letters length) 
from L1 to their second language (L2) or vice versa (8 minutes). Both senses of translation will 
be mixed randomly to increase working memory load. Translation corpus consists of 50 words in 
each language, matched across L1 and L2 on frequency, length in syllables and phonemes. 
Words will be presented on the screen and the subject will be asked to translate each word in 
the other language. The words will be presented 1500 ms on the screen after a fixation cross of 
300ms. The subject will have a maximum 2500ms to do the translation.  
 
Verbal and non-verbal fluency tasks, without EEG recording  
With the specific stimulation parameters used in our protocol, 30 minutes after applying rTMS 
(inhibitory/excitatory), it can be assumed that the after-effect of the stimulation will have 
disappeared. Participants will then perform a verbal fluency task (the subject will be asked to 
name as many words as he/she can which starts with a certain letter during 1 minute). 
Furthermore, a non-verbal fluency task (5 points test, i.e. a sheet of paper with 40 squares of 
fixed symmetrically arranged points (5 points) will be presented to the participant. The participant 
will be asked to produce as many different figures as possible with connecting the dots with at 
least one line connecting two dots during 2 minutes). Finally, participants will perform a 1-minute 
verbal fluency task in L2. 
 
 
Behavioral and EEG analyses 
Behavioral analysis 
A first behavioral analysis will compare naming and translation performances, as well as 
speech onset latencies in both languages.  
For statistical analyses we will compute two 2 way-ANOVAs for repeated measures with the 
within-subject factors Language (L1 vs L2) and Stimulation (inhibitory vs sham or excitatory vs 
sham). Moreover, we will compute two mixed-model ANOVAs with Language (L1 vs L2) as 
within-subject factor and Hemisphere (left vs. right) or Stimulation (inhibitory vs excitatory) as 
between-subject factors. 
 
Event Related Potentials analyses 
The analyses will be conducted with the same principles as in our prior works with reading 
and naming tasks. ERPs will be analyzed using a step-wise procedure that permits the time-
wise, multifactorial statistical assessment of (1) the dynamic changes of scalp-recorded electric 
field configuration and their temporal segmentation into quasi-stable functional micro-states 
indexing modulations of the configuration of intracranial generators, (2) global electric field 
power indexing modulation of response strength of the intracranial generators, (3) intracranial 
distributed linear electrical source estimations (e.g. Brunet et al., 2011 [21]; Murray et al., 2008 
[22]). These analyses will be conducted for each time frame of the whole ERP time-period; 
however, specific time windows are planned to be sensitive to our factors according to meta-
analyses [19] and our previous results: lexical selection is thought to occurs between 170 and 
270 ms after picture presentation, so there will be a first time window until 200 ms, a second 
time window between 200 and 300 ms, and a later time window (300-450 ms) corresponding to 
lexical-phonological encoding in previous studies. The main effect will be L1 and L2 patterns in 
term of amplitude, duration and sequences. Then, a second main effect will be the left 
inhibitory/excitatory/sham effect in an early time window before the vocalization will start. We will 
expect an interaction between language and stimulation, due to the fact that left DLPFC 
excitatory rTMS will modulate L2 more than L1.  
 
 
 

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
5 
 
References  
1. Green, D.W., et al., Language control and parallel recovery of language in individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology, 
2010. 24(2): p. 188-209. 
 
2. Abutalebi, J., et al., Bilingual aphasia and language control: a follow-up fMRI and intrinsic connectivity study. Brain 
Lang, 2009. 109(2-3): p. 141-56. 
 
3. Machii K. et al. 2006. Safety of rTMS to non-motor cortical areas in healthy participants and patients. Clinical 
Neurophysiology, 117, 455-471. 
 
4. Lefaucheur JP et al., 2014. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic 
stimulation (rTMS). Clinical Neurophysiology, 125, 2150-2206. 
 
5. Osaka N et al., 2007 Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex 
disrupts verbal working memory performance in humans. Neuorscience Letters, 418, 232-235. 
 
6. Cotelli M et al., 2011 Improved language performance in Alzheimer disease following brain stimulation. J Neurol 
Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82:7 794-797 
 
7. Holtzheimer P. et al. 2005. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may induce language switching in bilingual 
patients. Brain and Language, 94, 274-277  
 
8. NardoneR  et al., 2011 Theta burst stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates pathological language 
switching: A case report. Neuroscience Letters, 487, 378-382. 
 
9. Fabbro, F., Skrap, M., & Aglioti, S. (2000). Pathological switching between languages following frontal lesion in a 
bilingual patient. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 68, 650_652. 
 
10. Abutalebi J & Green D 2007. Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and 
control. Journal of Neurolingusitics, 20, 242-275. 
 
11. Rothwell JC: Techniques and mechanisms of action of transcranial stimulation of the human motor cortex. J 
Neurosci Methods 1997,74:113-122. 
 
12. Walsh,, V and Pascual-Leone A. Neurochronometrics of mind: transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive 
science. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003) 
 
13. Loo CK, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC, McDarmont BN, Mitchell PB, Sachdev PS. Transcranial magnetic stimulation 
(TMS) in controlled treatment studies: are some ‘‘sham’’ forms active? Biol Psychiatry 2000;47:325–31. 
 
14. Zhang, Su, and Nancy Thompson. "DIALANG: A Diagnostic Language Assessment System (review)." The 
Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes 61.2 (2004): 290-293. 
 
15. Buetler, K.A., et al., Language context modulates reading route: an electrical neuroimaging study. Front Hum 
Neurosci, 2014. 8: p. 83. 
 
16. Nyffeler, T., Cazzoli, D., Wurtz P., Lüthi, M., von Wartburg R., Chaves, S., Déruaz, A., Hess, C.W. and Müri, R.M. 
Neglect-like visual exploration behavior after theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right posterior parietal 
cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2008, Vol., 27, 1809-1813. 
 
17. Huang YZ, Edwards, M.J., Rounis, E., Bhatia, K.P., and Rothwell, J.C. Theta burst stimulation of the human motor 
cortex. 2005, Neuron, 45, 201-206. 
 
18. Wassermann, E. Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines 
from the international workshop on the safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, June 5-7, 1996. 1998, 
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 108, 1-16. 
 
19. Bates, E. et al. Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2003.10(2), 344-380 
 
20. Snodgrass, J.G. and M. Vanderwart, A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image 
agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn, 1980. 6(2): p. 174-215 
 
21. Brunet, D., M.M. Murray, and C.M. Michel, Spatiotemporal analysis of multichannel EEG: CARTOOL. Comput 
Intell Neurosci, 2011. 2011: p. 813870 
 
22. Murray, M.M., D. Brunet, and C.M. Michel, Topographic ERP analyses: a step-by-step tutorial review. Brain 
Topogr, 2008. 20(4): p. 249-64. 
 
23. Monsell, S., Sumner, P., and Waters, H. Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. 
Memory & Cognition, 2003. 31(3), 327-342 
 
 
 
 

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
6 
 
 
 
Study B: Effect of stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on motor control 
 
Background:  
Inhibitory control (IC) refers to the ability to suppress ongoing or planned cognitive or motor 
processes and enables to achieve goal-directed behaviors in changing environments ([1]). While 
inhibitory control is involved in regulating both behavior and cognition, most of current 
knowledge on IC comes from the study of how motor actions are executed or suppressed 
depending on the presentation of go and stop signals. Investigating inhibition in the motor 
domain indeed enables to easily measure the effects of IC by examining the rate of inaccurate 
responses to stop signals (failures of inhibitory control, or ‘false alarms’) and/or response times 
in contexts where responses have sometimes to be withheld. One of the main experimental 
paradigms utilized to study motor IC are Go/NoGo tasks [2], in which participants have to 
respond as fast as possible to a set of stimuli while withholding their responses to another set of 
stimuli. High IC proficiency is indexed by fast reaction times coupled with a low false alarm rate 
(though see e.g. [3] for more sophisticated indices of IC proficiency). 
Converging neuroimaging and clinical literature indicate that inhibitory control depends on a 
cortico-subcortical 
brain 
network 
comprising 
the 
inferior 
frontal 
gyrus 
(IFG), 
the 
presupplementary motor area (preSMA) and the basal ganglia (BG; Fig. 1a; for review: [4]). 
When the cancelation of an action is required, this network is engaged at around 200 ms after 
the onset of stop-signals [5-8]. While the right IFG seems critical for a good IC performance, the 
left IFG seems important but not critical [9]. 
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is increasingly being used as promising 
therapeutic tool for psychiatric and neurological diseases as well as a valuable tool for 
neuroscientists investigating underlying mechanisms of cognitive functions (Machii et al., 2005 
[10], Lefaucheur et al., 2014 [11]). Neuroimaging, clinical and TMS studies show that the DLPFC 
plays an important role in processes involving response selection and inhibition (for review see 
[4]. As such, investigating the effect of rTMS applied to the DLPFC on inhibitory control would 
allow to further understand the neural substrates and the neural circuitry of inhibitory control.  
 
Aim:  
The aim of the present project is to demonstrate the impact of the modulation of the DLPFC 
on inhibitory control. The experimental task will test the impact of prefrontal stimulation by rTMS 
(excitatory vs inhibitory) over left and right DLPFC of 80 healthy adult subjects during a simple 
Go/NoGo task. The hypothesis are that excitatory rTMS of both left and right DLPFC will 
improve Go/NoGo proficiency, whereas inhibitory rTMS of the right but not left DLPFC will 
decrease Go/NoGo performance. In total, 80 healthy subjects between 18 and 45 years will be 
assessed for study B. 
 
 
Methods:  
 
rTMS 
→ see study A 
 
Procedure:  
Each participant will take part in two sessions: 1.inhibitory rTMS left DLPFC 2. inhibitory rTMS 
right DLPFC or 1.excitatory rTMS left DLPFC 2. excitatory rTMS right DLPFC. There will be a 
two-week interval between the sessions to avoid the crossover of the effects of rTMS. In all 
sessions, the same evaluations/tasks will be used.  The order of left DLPFC stimulation and right 

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
7 
 
DLPFC stimulation will be counter-balanced.  
 
This study consists of 4 sessions: 1. left excitatory rTMS, 2. Left inhibitory rTMS, 3. Right 
excitatory rTMS, 4. Right inhibitory rTMS. There will be a two-week interval between each two 
sessions to avoid the crossover of the effects of rTMS. In all sessions, the same 
evaluations/tasks will be used.  The order the sessions will be counter-balanced.  
Participants are seated in an electrically shielded and sound attenuated booth in front of a 
LCD screen. Stimulus delivery and response recording are controlled using E-Prime 2.0 
(Psychology Tools, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA). The stimuli are presented in the center of the screen. 
Behavioral data will be recorded.  
 
Stimuli and tasks  
In the Go/NoGo task, the stimuli are five consonants (S, T, M, H, X) and four vowels (A, E, I, 
O) presented in black on a white screen. Each trial starts with the presentation of a centered 
black cross for a duration that randomly varied between 1200 and 2200 ms (100 ms steps). 
Immediately after the offset of the cross, one of the nine letters is presented in a pseudo-random 
fashion for 500 ms. Participants have a maximum of 2200 msec to respond. Each subject 
performs four blocks of 100 trials each.  
Participants are instructed to reply as fast as possible by a button press each time a letter is 
shown on the screen, except for the letter “X”. When the letter “X” appears, participants have to 
withhold their response. To increase response prepotency, the probability of trial occurrence in 
each block is or 0.3 for the no go (“X”) and 0.7 for the go. For the Go trials, the probability is 
equally distributed among the 4 consonants (S, T, M, H) and the four vowels (A, E, I, O)).  
Each block lasts 3 minutes. Thirty seconds rest periods separate each block. After each rest 
period, the instructions are shown again to the participant, for a duration of 3 sec. 
 
Behavioral analyses 
Performance is indexed by the rate of false alarms (FA, i.e. the proportion of unsuccessfully 
responded NoGo trials), and RTs to Go stimuli. These indexes are analyzed according to a 2*2 
design with the factors Stimulation side (Left; Right) and Stimulation type (excitatory; inhibitory). 
We expect an interaction between the two factors, driven by an improvement and decrease of 
performance after right DLPFC excitatory and inhibitory rTMS, respectively, and an improvement 
of performance after left DLPFC inhibitory rTMS. 
 
 
References  
 
1. Aron, A.R., The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. Neuroscientist, 2007. 13(3): p. 214-28. 
 
2. Donders, F.C., On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychol (Amst), 1969. 30: p. 412-31. 
 
3. Hirose, S., et al., Efficiency of go/no-go task performance implemented in the left hemisphere. J Neurosci, 2012. 
32(26): p. 9059-65. 
 
4. Chambers, C.D., H. Garavan, and M.A. Bellgrove, Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from 
cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2009. 33(5): p. 631-46. 
 
5. Aron, A.R., T.W. Robbins, and R.A. Poldrack, Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci, 
2004. 8(4): p. 170-7. 
 
6. Falkenstein, M., J. Hoormann, and J. Hohnsbein, ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to 
inhibition. Acta Psychol (Amst), 1999. 101(2-3): p. 267-91. 
 
7. Falkenstein, M., et al., Late ERP components in visual and auditory Go/Nogo tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin 
Neurophysiol, 1995. 96(1): p. 36-43. 
 
8. Rubia, K., et al., Mapping motor inhibition: conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and 
stop tasks. Neuroimage, 2001. 13(2): p. 250-61. 
 

Annoni et al.,Ethics Committee ‘Executive functions in language and motricity’  
Document 2- Version 06.06.2016 – Second Addendum language  
 
8 
 
9. Boucher, L., et al., Inhibitory control in mind and brain: an interactive race model of countermanding saccades.  
Psychol Rev, 2007. 114(2): p. 376-97. 
 
10. Machii K. et al. 2006. Safety of rTMS to non-motor cortical areas in healthy participants and patients. Clinical  
Neurophysiology, 117, 455-471. 
 
11. Lefaucheur JP et al., 2014. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic 
stimulation (rTMS). Clinical Neurophysiology, 125, 2150-2206. 
 
12. Chambers C.D. et al., 2007. Dissociable Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Prefrontal and Premotor Cortex. 
Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 3638-3647. 
 
 
 
 
Principal Investigator Signature:                    
 
 
 
Date: 06.06.2016