Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on attribution of movement to ambiguous stimuli and EEG mu suppression

Abstract

Recent research suggests that attributing human movement to ambiguous and static Rorschach stimuli (M responses) is associated with EEG mu suppression, and that disrupting the left inferior gyrus (LIFG; a putative area implicated in mirroring activity) decreases the tendency to see human movement when exposed to the Rorschach ambiguous stimuli. The current study aimed to test whether disrupting the LIFG via repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) would decrease both the number of human movement attributions and EEG mu suppression. Each participant was exposed to the Rorschach stimuli twice, i.e., during a baseline condition (without rTMS but with EEG recording) and soon after rTMS (TMS condition with EEG recording). Experimental group (N = 15) was stimulated over the LIFG, while the control group (N = 13) was stimulated over the Vertex. As expected, disrupting the LIFG but not Vertex, decreased the number of M attributions provided by the participants exposed to the Rorschach stimuli, with a significant interaction effect. Unexpectedly, however, rTMS did not significantly influence EEG mu suppression.

Personality features and vulnerability to stress: a case study on hyperhidrosis

“…As mentioned in the introduction, the approach used to study the case integrated several psychological tools, related to distinct operating domains: performances and psychophysiological tests. The incremental value of this approach has been pointed out from several authors over the years (e.g., see Ando' et al, 2017;Ando' et al, 2015;Bornstein, 2017;Campbell & Fiske, 1959;Giromini et al, 2016aGiromini et al, , 2016bMeyer, 2018).…”

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

“…In particular, Mihura et al's (2013) meta-analytic examination of all interpreted variables included in the popular comprehensive system (CS; Exner, 2003) led to the conclusion that 26 of them demonstrated excellent (r ≥ 0.33, p < .001, FSN > 50) or good (r ≥ .21, p < .05, FSN ≥ 10) validity, when using externally assessed criteria to evaluate them rather than self-report. 4 Moreover, during the past two decades, several Rorschach variables (e.g., human movement, complexity, Vista) have received extensive empirical validation using (a) neuroscientific techniques such as EEG (Ando' et al, 2018;Giromini et al, 2010;Pineda et al, 2011;Porcelli et al, 2013), fMRI (Asari et al, 2010;Giromini et al, 2017Giromini et al, , 2019aGiromini et al, , 2019bVitolo et al, 2020), and rTMS (Ando' et al, 2015(Ando' et al, , 2018, or (b) psychophysiological research methods involving the measurement of electrodermal activity (Giromini et al, 2016), eye movements (Ales et al, 2019;Minassian et al, 2005, Perry et al, 1995, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) (Lundbäck et al, 2006), and other physiological criteria (Meaney, 2011;Meyer et al, 2018).…”

The Application of the Rorschach Inkblot Test in the Study of Neural and Cognitive Aging

“…Perceived active movement led to greater differences in regional EEG activity than passive movement (Porcelli et al, 2013) and similar activity can be primed by viewing a video of human movement (Giromini et al, 2016). In particular, the left inferior frontal gyrus may be relevant to the perception of human movement from Rorschach inkblots – application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to this region was associated with fewer M responses as compared to the control group, although it did not appear to alter EEG mu suppression (Ando’ et al, 2015, 2018).…”