case_images: PMC9932753_01
case_images: Figure depicts comparison of total excursion (a) and mean velocity (b) of
  sway pre and post TMS sessions. Two different conditions of eyes open (EO)
  and eyes closed (EC) are presented. Note the difference between eyes open
  and eyes closed conditions as well as constant changes following rTMS
  sessions.
case_images: 10.1177_2050313X231153757-fig1.jpg
case_images: PMC9932753_01_10.1177_2050313X231153757-fig1.jpg
case_images: fig1-2050313X231153757
case_images: The boxplots in Figure 1 also show the same pattern.
case_images: Figure illustrates fit for mean velocity of sway with 95% confidence limits
  and compares changes of postural velocity for different visits. Note
  significant and continued change of sway velocity following each visit.
case_images: 10.1177_2050313X231153757-fig2.jpg
case_images: PMC9932753_01_10.1177_2050313X231153757-fig2.jpg
case_images: fig2-2050313X231153757
case_images: Factor, Condition, and Visit. Figure 2 shows a trend that mean velocity of sway decreased over the three visits.
case_images: Figure presents the resultant power spectral density of sway (a) and fractal
  dimension confidence circle area (b) of sway signal. The figure shows pre
  and post TMS sessions as well as eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC)
  conditions. Note that changes between pre and post TMS sessions are always
  augmented when eyes are closed.
case_images: 10.1177_2050313X231153757-fig3.jpg
case_images: PMC9932753_01_10.1177_2050313X231153757-fig3.jpg
case_images: fig3-2050313X231153757
case_images: Comparison of sway signal power changes before and after rTMS sessions for each condition, however, did not show statistically significant changes (Figure 3). On the other hand, when eyes closed conditions were compared, the decrease of FD_CC following rTMS sessions was statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Figure 3).