. PANAS: No impact four. STAI-state: No impact Active vs. sham tDCS: 1. Valence

sham rTMS: 1. Reduced engagement score for angry faces associated with increased activation in the L OFC, R DLPFC, dorsal/pregenual ACC, R SPG 2. Mood VAS: No effect Active R DLPFC vs. sham rTMS: 1. NAP process: Decreased scores for negative faces two. Mood VAS: No impact (Continued)Leyman et al.,Crossover Sham controlled18 (0)21.R DLPFC10 Hz 40 trains of 3.9 s 26.1 s ITI 1560 pulses 110 MT1. NAP task with happy, sad and neutral faces (t0, t1) two. Mood 5-item VAS: sadness, tension, vigor, fatigue, anger (t0, t1, t40)Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.orgOctober 2015 | Volume 9 | title= fpsyg.2017.00007 ArticleMondino et al.NIBS effects on mood and emotionTABLE 1 | Continued References Study GDC-0810 web design and style N (Males) Imply age in years 24 Web-site of stimulation* L DLPFC (MNI BN) NIBS parameters** Experimental outcomes (Time of assessment) 1. NAP process with content, sad and neutral faces (t0, t1) 2. Mood 5-item VAS: sadness, tension, vigor, fatigue, anger (t0, t1, t40) 1. Emotional Stroop activity with masked and unmasked neutral and fearful faces (t30) Primary resultsCrossover Sham controlled22 (0)10 Hz 40 trains of 3.9 s 26.1 s ITI 1560 pulses 110 MT 1 Hz 1 single train 1200 pulses 130 MT 0.six Hz 1 single train 540 pulses 130 MTActive L DLPFC vs. sham rTMS: 1. NAP process: No impact two. Mood VAS: No effectVan Honk et al., 2002bCrossover Sham RG-7604 supplier controlled8 (4)Range: 20?R DLPFC (10/20 EEG)Active vs. sham rTMS: 1. Emotional Stroop job: Decreased attention for unmasked fearful faces Active rTMS, R vs. L DLPFC: 1. Emotional Stroop activity: Improved attention for angry faces two. PEP: Lowered PEP Correlation between increased focus and lowered PEP Active rTMS, L vs. R DLPFC: 1. Emotional Stroop activity: Decreased interest for angry faces two. POMS-32: No effect Active rTMS, R vs. L DLPFC 1. Emotional Stroop job: Enhanced interest for angry faces two. POMS-32: No effectvan Honk et al., 2002aCrossover with no sham10 (0)Variety: 18?L DLPFC R DLPFC (five cm anterior to M1 or M2)1.. PANAS: No impact four. STAI-state: No impact Active vs. sham tDCS: 1. Valence rating task: No effectPe -G ez et al.,Crossover Sham controlled16 (0)22.L DLPFC/M2 (10/20 EEG)1 mA 20 min 35 cm1. Valence rating process with IAPS stimuli (t0.5) two. Mood 5-item VAS: annoyance, contentment, hope, nervousness, sadness three. PANAS 4. STAI-state (t0, t1)Crossover Sham controlled9 (0)25.M2/L DLPFC (10/20 EEG)1 mA 20 min 35 cm1. Valence rating process with IAPS stimuli (t0.five)(C) EFFECTS OF NIBS ON ATTENTIONAL PROCESSING OF EMOTIONAL Info rTMS research Vanderhasselt et al., 2011 Crossover Sham controlled 28 (0) 22.three R DLPFC (MNI BN) 10 Hz 40 trains of 3.9 s 26.1 s ITI 1560 pulses 110 MT ten Hz 40 trains of 3.9 s 26.1 s ITI 1560 pulses 110 MT 1. Exogenous cueing activity with neutral and angry faces (t0, t1) two. POMS-32 (t0, t1, t30) Active vs. sham rTMS: 1. Exogenous cueing task: Increased AB for angry faces 2. POMS-32: No effectDe Raedt et al.,Crossover (n = 18) and parallel (n = 19) sham controlled37 (0)22.L DLPFC R DLPFC (MNI BN)1.