Lessons learned from an fMRI-guided rTMS study on performance in a numerical Stroop task.

The Stroop task is a well-established tool to investigate the influence of competing visual categories on decision making. Neuroimaging as well as rTMS studies have demonstrated the involvement of parietal structures, particularly the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), in this task. Given its reliability, the numerical Stroop task was used to compare the effects of different TMS targeting approaches by Sack and colleagues (Sack AT 2009), who elegantly demonstrated the superiority of individualized fMRI targeting. We performed the present study to test whether fMRI-guided rTMS effects on numerical Stroop task performance could still be observed while using more advanced techniques that have emerged in the last decade (e.g., electrical sham, robotic coil holder system, etc.). To do so we used a traditional reaction time analysis and we performed, post-hoc, a more advanced comprehensive drift diffusion modeling approach. Fifteen participants performed the numerical Stroop task while active or sham 10 Hz rTMS was applied over the region of the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) showing the strongest functional activation in the Incongruent > Congruent contrast. This target was determined based on individualized fMRI data collected during a separate session. Contrary to our assumption, the classical reaction time analysis did not show any superiority of active rTMS over sham, probably due to confounds such as potential cumulative rTMS effects, and the effect of practice. However, the modeling approach revealed a robust effect of rTMS on the drift rate variable, suggesting differential processing of congruent and incongruent properties in perceptual decision-making, and more generally, illustrating that more advanced computational analysis of performance can elucidate the effects of rTMS on the brain where simpler methods may not.

Impact of the Early COVID-19 Pandemic on Gender Participation in Academic Publishing in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: There is a known gender gap in oncology publishing with worse disparities within specialty fields such as radiation oncology. There has been a significant increase in the number of articles submitted to academic journals during the pandemic. Several analyses have suggested that the pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on academic productivity of women in academia, as measured by article publication rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The gender of first/co-first and corresponding/co-corresponding authors, as well as nonsenior versus senior status and manuscript type, for all articles published by Advances from its inception in December 2015 to the end of February 2020 was compared with those published between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020: the months during which the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in North America began. RESULTS: This examination of papers published during COVID-19 did not indicate a statistically significant decrease in the overall proportion of women publishing in Advances (P = .76). For nonsenior female authors, this proportion fell just short of statistical significance (39% vs 19%, P = .051). When only scientific manuscripts were considered, there was a statistically significant decrease in publications by nonsenior female first authors during the early months of the pandemic (37% vs 11%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, nonsenior female researchers participated less in article publishing in radiation oncology.