AzTrials
AzTrials

Young Healthy AdultsStimMaps_YHNCT07749378

Investigating the Mechanisms of Decision-Making Using Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation

A study testing Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation and Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation in people with Young Healthy Adults, run by Wuerzburg University Hospital at 1 site in Germany.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study aims to investigate which of two brain regions is important for which decision-making strategy. The investigators suppose that one brain region - the *striatum* - is important for repeatedly choosing objects that have previously been paired with rewards (strategy 1). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 40 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Young Healthy Adults
What is being tested?
Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation and Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
36 participants
Where
1 siteGermany
Study dates
27 Apr 2026to Apr 2027
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 40 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • No diagnosis of any neurological or psychiatric disease

Who cannot join

  • Severe neuropsychiatric or unstable systemic disease
  • Severe sensory or cognitive impairment or musculoskeletal dysfunction that would prevent subjects from understanding the task instructions or executing the tasks
  • Implanted medical devices
  • Diagnosis of epilepsy or history of one or more epileptic seizure(s)
  • Pieces of metal in/around the head
  • Regular consumption of narcotics (also excluded: cannabis within past month, alcohol abuse or dependence)
Show all 10Show fewer
  • Pregnancy and breast feeding
  • Incapability of giving informed consent
  • Left-handedness
  • Subjects included in the study will be excluded from analyses if their datasets are incomplete. To ensure full counterbalancing, excluded subjects will be replaced by new ones.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Jana S. Ludwig, M. Sc. contact

0049 931 3183395

ludwig_j5@ukw.de

Germany1 site, 1 recruiting

  • University Hospital Würzburg (UKW)

    Würzburg, Bavaria, 97080

    Jana S. Ludwig, M. Sc., 0049 931 3183395, ludwig_j5@ukw.de

    Maximilian J. Wessel, Prof. Dr.

    Recruiting

Other trials in Germany

About this study

Official title: Investigating the Interplay of Striatal and Hippocampal Processing in Decision-Making Using Transcranial Temporal Interference Stimulation

This study aims to investigate which of two brain regions is important for which decision-making strategy. The investigators suppose that one brain region - the *striatum* - is important for repeatedly choosing objects that have previously been paired with rewards (strategy 1). They suppose that a different region - the *hippocampus* - is important for extending such reasoning to RELATED objects (strategy 2).

The investigators will repeatedly ask young and healthy subjects to choose between two objects. The two objects are repeatedly drawn from a pool of seven. Relations between the seven objects have been learned on the first day of the experiment. The investigators will record subjects' choices and will use an automated way to assess the extent to which any given subject uses either decision-making strategy.

Read more
  • On one day, subjects will perform the task while their right hippocampus is being stimulated with non-invasive electrical stimulation ("condition A").
  • On another day, subjects will perform the same task but with their striatum being stimulated ("condition B").
  • On yet another day, a control stimulation ("condition C") will be applied that looks and feels like the real stimulation but does not influence brain activity.

Which stimulation (A, B, C) happens on which day is assigned by computer code and differs between subjects. Subjects do not know, and investigators mostly do not know, whether real or control stimulation is applied on each day.

The investigators will check whether subjects use strategy 1 more when their striatum is being stimulated and strategy 2 more when their hippocampus is being stimulated, as compared to when the control stimulation is applied.

Read the detailed description

The purpose of this study is to isolate the roles of hippocampal formation versus striatum in cognitive map-based versus stimulus-outcome learning-based decision-making. The study consists of four sessions on four consecutive days: an initial learning session and three decision-making sessions under three different non-invasive brain stimulation conditions.

Decision-making will be observed in a choice task, where young and healthy adults will be presented with two out of seven stimuli on any given trial. They will be asked to choose one of both so as to maximize their reward. The reward value of the chosen stimulus is displayed after the choice has been made. Different stimuli's reward values are related to each other following latent relations between stimuli learned during the subject's first experimental session. Throughout the choice task, reward values shift from time to time without notice, but always respecting the latent structure between stimuli. Subjects can most successfully adapt to these spontaneous shifts if they use the relational knowledge acquired during session 1 (map-based generalization), whereas learning the new reward values one-by-one will cost more time/trials (stimulus-outcome association learning).

During the choice task, neural activity will be upregulated using transcranial temporal interference stimulation (tTIS; Grossman et al., 2017; Vassiliadis et al., 08/2024), specifically, intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS; Beanato, Moon et al., 2024; Wessel, Beanato et al., 2023). Subjects will undergo hippocampal tTIS in one session, striatal tTIS in another session, and high-frequency control stimulation in yet another session. The order of conditions is pseudorandomized and counterbalanced across subjects. For blinding, see "Study Design". Shifts in cognitive map-based versus stimulus-outcome association-based decision-making will be analyzed as a function of stimulation condition using computational modeling of choice data.

Assuming a causal role of the hippocampal formation in cognitive map-based behavior (Garvert et al., 2017) and of the striatum in stimulus-outcome learning (Gläscher et al., 2010), a double dissociation may be expected: upregulating hippocampal activity should boost map-based over stimulus-outcome association-based decision-making, whereas upregulating striatal activity should produce the opposite effect (always as compared to the high-frequency control stimulation).

Hypotheses formulated in this registration are theoretically motivated and partly supported by online behavioral pilot data that will not be included in any analyses. At first submission of this registration, data collection is ongoing. The collected data has been inspected for quality control but has neither been used to generate hypotheses nor to test these (except navigation and proximity judgment task accuracy has been inspected to ensure successful learning). Investigators are partly blind to stimulation condition (see "Study Design"), and no stimulation condition-dependent analyses have been conducted before submission of this registration.

Being tested
Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation, Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation, High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up, High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up
Keywords
Cognitive maps, Model-based vs. model-free decision-making, Reinforcement learning, Computational modeling, Transcranial electric stimulation, Transcranial temporal interference stimulation

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulationDevice

    Transcranial temporal interference stimulation using intermittent theta-burst protocol and targeting right hippocampus. Unlike the striatal set-up, the hippocampal electrode set-up is asymmetrical and can only stimulate unilaterally (Beanato, Moon et al., 2024; Violante et al., 2023). In the present study, *right* hippocampus is targeted because it showed cognitive map-compatible activity in a similar task in a previous study (Garvert et al., 2023) and because it has been suggested to be involved in map-based navigation (Iglói et al., 2010).

  • Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulationDevice

    Transcranial temporal interference stimulation using intermittent theta-burst protocol and targeting bilateral striatum.

  • High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-upDevice

    Analoguous to transcranial temporal interference stimulation except both high-frequency electric fields are oscillating at the exact same frequency, meaning there is no biologically active envelope modulation. This high-frequency stimulation is applied with the striatal electrode set-up in 50 % of the subjects (hippocampal set-up in the other 50 %). No stimulation actually occurs because the stimulation frequency is too high to be biologically active (Grossman et al., 2017).

  • High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-upDevice

    Analoguous to transcranial temporal interference stimulation except both high-frequency electric fields are oscillating at the exact same frequency, meaning there is no biologically active envelope modulation. This high-frequency stimulation is applied with the hippocampal electrode set-up in 50 % of the subjects (striatal set-up in the other 50 %). No stimulation actually occurs because the stimulation frequency is too high to be biologically active (Grossman et al., 2017).

Study groups in NCT07749378
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Striatal tTIS -> Hippocampal tTIS -> Striatal high-frequency controlExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Striatal" in "striatal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the striatum occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up
Striatal tTIS -> Striatal high-frequency control -> Hippocampal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Striatal" in "striatal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the striatum occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up
Hippocampal tTIS -> Striatal high-frequency control -> Striatal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Striatal" in "striatal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the striatum occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up
Hippocampal tTIS -> Striatal tTIS -> Striatal high-frequency controlExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Striatal" in "striatal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the striatum occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up
Striatal high-frequency control -> Striatal tTIS -> Hippocampal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Striatal" in "striatal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the striatum occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up
Striatal high-frequency control -> Hippocampal tTIS -> Striatal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Striatal" in "striatal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the striatum occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with striatal electrode set-up
Striatal tTIS -> Hippocampal tTIS -> Hippocampal high-frequency controlExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Hippocampal" in "hippocampal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the hippocampus occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up
Striatal tTIS -> Hippocampal high-frequency control -> Hippocampal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Hippocampal" in "hippocampal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the hippocampus occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up
Hippocampal tTIS -> Hippocampal high-frequency control -> Striatal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Hippocampal" in "hippocampal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the hippocampus occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up
Hippocampal tTIS -> Striatal tTIS -> Hippocampal high-frequency controlExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Hippocampal" in "hippocampal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the hippocampus occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up
Hippocampal high-frequency control -> Striatal tTIS -> Hippocampal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Hippocampal" in "hippocampal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the hippocampus occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up
Hippocampal high-frequency control -> Hippocampal tTIS -> Striatal tTISExperimentalStriatal tTIS and hippocampal tTIS are active experimental conditions. High-frequency control is a placebo comparator. "Hippocampal" in "hippocampal high-frequency control" refers to the electrode set-up (no actual stimulation of the hippocampus occurs in that condition).
Receives: Device: Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation; Device: High-frequency control stimulation with hippocampal electrode set-up

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Weight between map-based generalization and stimulus-outcome association-based decision-making

    "Weight" references a parameter that is extracted from recorded choice behavior by means of computational modeling. Three basic models (one map-based, two stimulus-outcome association-based) are fit to each subject's choice data from each session. Two hybrid models - combining the map-based with either of the stimulus-outcome association-based components - are also fit. The weight parameter will be extracted from the hybrid model that fits most subjects' behavior best under the control condition (high-frequency stimulation). It describes the extent to which the subject relies on the map-based relative to the association-based component/strategy for making their choices.

    Given the presumed roles of hippocampus in map-based and striatum in association-based decision-making, the investigators expect the weight parameter to increase under hippocampal tTIS and to decrease under striatal tTIS relative to high-frequency control stimulation.

    Measured: Days 2-4.

Secondary outcomes (9)

  1. Choice accuracy

    Whether, out of two simultaneously presented stimuli, the one associated with the higher reward has been chosen on a given trial.

    Early after a shift in reward contingencies, using a map-based strategy should increase the probability of choosing correctly. This is because the new reward contingencies may not have been experienced yet (disabling association-based strategies) and so can only be inferred (requiring map-based strategies). Both strategies should be equally successful later after a shift once all new contingencies have been experienced. Averaged across all trials, the investigators therefore expect to observe higher accuracy under hippocampal and lower accuracy under striatal tTIS as compared to control stimulation. The investigators also expect subjects' individual choice accuracies to positively correlate with their map-based weight parameter estimates.

    Measured: Days 2-4.

  2. Choice response time

    Time between presentation of the two stimuli for the present trial and the subject's choice of one of the two stimuli.

    The investigators will analyze the effects of hippocampal and striatal tTIS as compared to control stimulation on response time in an exploratory manner.

    Measured: Days 2-4.

  3. Proportion of subjects best fit by different computational models

    Different candidate models are fit to the recorded choice data, two of which are on the "stimulus-outcome association-based" and one on the "map-based generalization" side. Hybrid models (= weighted sum of one stimulus-outcome association-based element and the map-based generalization element) are also fit. WAIC (Watanabe, 2010) will be used to determine which model fits which subject best under any given stimulation condition. The investigators expect the proportion of subjects best described by the map-based (association-based) model(s) to increase (decrease) under hippocampal tTIS as compared to control stimulation, with the opposite pattern showing under striatal tTIS.

    Note: Should ≥ 50 % of subjects perform at chance level in the proximity judgments in the first session (last eight blocks), the investigators will use subjects' *subjective* representations (as collected at the end of the last choice task session) instead of the objective ones as a basis for the map-based model.

    Measured: Days 2-4.

  4. Influence of true and past rewards on choice

    The investigators will use (a) the difference in the most recently observed values of the stimuli presented to the subject's left vs. right and (b) the difference between the actual, current values of these stimuli (which may not have been observed yet) to predict whether the subject will have chosen the left vs. right stimulus. Subjects pursuing a stimulus-outcome association-based strategy will exclusively rely on directly experienced reward contingencies (strong regression weight of (a) but not (b)). Subjects generalizing across related stimuli will be able to infer a stimulus' current value even if that one has not been observed recently (strong regression weight of (b) but not (a)).

    The investigators expect the regression weights of (a) to increase and (b) to decrease under striatal tTIS (opposite under hippocampal tTIS) as compared to control stimulation.

    Measured: Days 2-4.

  5. Influence of true and past rewards on choice response time

    The investigators will use (a) the difference in the directly experienced past values of left vs. right stimuli and (b) the difference in the actual, current reward values of left vs. right stimuli (which may not have been observed yet) as predictors of response time. Subjects should respond more quickly if the value difference is larger (less conflict). Under this assumption, a comparison of regression weights (a) and (b) will reveal whether subjects' behavior is more strongly governed by (differences in) experienced values or by (differences in) inferred true values.

    The investigators will analyze the effects of striatal and hippocampal tTIS as compared to control stimulation on the regression weights in an exploratory manner.

    Measured: Days 2-4.

  6. Proximity judgment task accuracy

    Subjects will learn the latent relations between stimuli on the first day by means of a navigation task and a proximity judgment task (among two stimuli, identifying the one that is closest to a third). Both tasks are presented in an alternating manner. Proximity judgment task accuracy is the proportion of trials on which the closer stimulus was correctly identified. Proximity judgment task accuracy in the last 8 blocks is expected to be above chance and to increase over blocks as subjects learn the relations between stimuli. Proximity judgments are additionally collected at the beginning of the second, third, and fourth sessions *before* stimulation onset to determine subjects' current knowledge of the latent relations. Stable performances are expected across sessions 2 through 4 and between stimulation conditions. Supplementary analyses of choice behavior will be constrained to subjects with above-chance proximity judgment accuracy or include this accuracy as a covariate.

    Measured: Days 1-4.

  7. Proximity judgment task response time

    Time between presentation of the three stimuli for the present trial and the subject's response as to which of the two options they believe to be closest to the third stimulus. This measure will be analyzed in an exploratory manner.

    Measured: Days 1-4.

  8. Stimulation tolerability

    • Which sensations do subjects report during familiarization with the stimulation? In the familiarization, the investigators will gradually expose the subject to a current intensity of 1, 2, 3, 4 mA (summed across both channels) both for tTIS and for high-frequency control stimulation (order counterbalanced between subjects and subjects blind to type of stimulation). Subjects are asked to report the strength and type of any sensations they may experience.
    • Which side effects do subjects report relating to each of the three stimulation sessions?

    The investigators expect tTIS and high-frequency control stimulation to be tolerable (Vassiliadis et al., 03/2024).

    Measured: Days 2-4.

  9. Stimulation blinding

    Are subjects' classifications of real vs. placebo stimulation for each session (as collected after the final stimulation session) correct above chance?

    The investigators expect tTIS and high-frequency control stimulation to be indistinguishable from subjects' point of view, ensuring successful blinding (Vassiliadis et al., 03/2024).

    Measured: Day 4.

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted6 Aug 2026
  2. Study start27 Apr 2026
  3. Primary completionApr 2027 (estimated)
  4. Study completionApr 2027 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Crossover
Model description
Each subject undergoes each of three conditions: striatal tTIS, hippocampal tTIS, high-frequency control stimulation. Whether the high-frequency control stimulation uses the striatal or the hippocampal electrode set-up is pseudorandomized and counterbalanced between subjects. The 36 subjects are randomly assigned to the 12 arms such that the first, second, and third batches of 12 subjects each cover each arm once. This will allow for fully counterbalanced preliminary analyses at \*N\* = 12 and \*N\* = 24.
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
36 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07749378
Sponsor's protocol ID
2025-313-dvha
Acronym
StimMaps_YH
Status last verified
Aug 2026
First submitted
26 Jun 2026
Last updated
6 Aug 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Each subject's age, gender, depression score, handedness score, learning performance, and choice data under each stimulation condition will be shared (from which response times, choice accuracy, and decision-making strategies may be extracted, the latter by means of computational modeling). Non-freetext stimulation sensation ratings, side effect reports, and blinding check data will also be shared. Data will be shared in anonymized form.

Publications

  • Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4. No abstract available.

    PubMed 5146491

  • Garvert MM, Saanum T, Schulz E, Schuck NW, Doeller CF. Hippocampal spatio-predictive cognitive maps adaptively guide reward generalization. Nat Neurosci. 2023 Apr;26(4):615-626. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01283-x. Epub 2023 Apr 3.

    PubMed 37012381

  • Igloi K, Doeller CF, Berthoz A, Rondi-Reig L, Burgess N. Lateralized human hippocampal activity predicts navigation based on sequence or place memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 10;107(32):14466-71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004243107. Epub 2010 Jul 26.

    PubMed 20660746

  • Hautzinger, M., & Bailer, M. (2003). Allgemeine Depressions-Skala (ADS) [Test]. Beltz-Test.

  • Beanato E, Moon HJ, Windel F, Vassiliadis P, Wessel MJ, Popa T, Pauline M, Neufeld E, De Falco E, Gauthier B, Steiner M, Blanke O, Hummel FC. Noninvasive modulation of the hippocampal-entorhinal complex during spatial navigation in humans. Sci Adv. 2024 Nov;10(44):eado4103. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ado4103. Epub 2024 Oct 30.

    PubMed 39475597

  • Vassiliadis P, Beanato E, Popa T, Windel F, Morishita T, Neufeld E, Duque J, Derosiere G, Wessel MJ, Hummel FC. Non-invasive stimulation of the human striatum disrupts reinforcement learning of motor skills. Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Aug;8(8):1581-1598. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01901-z. Epub 2024 May 29.

    PubMed 38811696

  • Vassiliadis P, Stiennon E, Windel F, Wessel MJ, Beanato E, Hummel FC. Safety, tolerability and blinding efficiency of non-invasive deep transcranial temporal interference stimulation: first experience from more than 250 sessions. J Neural Eng. 2024 Mar 11;21(2). doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ad2d32.

    PubMed 38408385

  • Watanabe, S. (2010). Asymptotic Equivalence of Bayes Cross Validation and Widely Applicable Information Criterion in Singular Learning Theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 3571-3594.

  • Wessel MJ, Beanato E, Popa T, Windel F, Vassiliadis P, Menoud P, Beliaeva V, Violante IR, Abderrahmane H, Dzialecka P, Park CH, Maceira-Elvira P, Morishita T, Cassara AM, Steiner M, Grossman N, Neufeld E, Hummel FC. Noninvasive theta-burst stimulation of the human striatum enhances striatal activity and motor skill learning. Nat Neurosci. 2023 Nov;26(11):2005-2016. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01457-7. Epub 2023 Oct 19.

    PubMed 37857774

  • Violante IR, Alania K, Cassara AM, Neufeld E, Acerbo E, Carron R, Williamson A, Kurtin DL, Rhodes E, Hampshire A, Kuster N, Boyden ES, Pascual-Leone A, Grossman N. Non-invasive temporal interference electrical stimulation of the human hippocampus. Nat Neurosci. 2023 Nov;26(11):1994-2004. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01456-8. Epub 2023 Oct 19.

    PubMed 37857775

  • Grossman N, Bono D, Dedic N, Kodandaramaiah SB, Rudenko A, Suk HJ, Cassara AM, Neufeld E, Kuster N, Tsai LH, Pascual-Leone A, Boyden ES. Noninvasive Deep Brain Stimulation via Temporally Interfering Electric Fields. Cell. 2017 Jun 1;169(6):1029-1041.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.024.

    PubMed 28575667

  • Glascher J, Daw N, Dayan P, O'Doherty JP. States versus rewards: dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron. 2010 May 27;66(4):585-95. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.016.

    PubMed 20510862

  • Garvert MM, Dolan RJ, Behrens TE. A map of abstract relational knowledge in the human hippocampal-entorhinal cortex. Elife. 2017 Apr 27;6:e17086. doi: 10.7554/eLife.17086.

    PubMed 28448253

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Hippocampal intermittent-theta burst stimulation and Striatal intermittent-theta burst stimulation in people with Young Healthy Adults, run by Wuerzburg University Hospital at 1 site in Germany.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Germany. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Jana S. Ludwig, M. Sc. (0049 931 3183395, ludwig_j5@ukw.de), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Weight between map-based generalization and stimulus-outcome association-based decision-making (time frame: Days 2-4.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07749378, which also lists 13 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Aug 2026.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in