Compared to the legal substances (e.g., alcohol and nicotine), there are fewer studies on addiction to substances such as marijuana, opioids, cocaine, and metham­phetamine. Among the eight studies on methamphetamine, six studies used excit­atory stimulation parameters (10Hz/iTBS) to target the left DLPFC region and found that it could signicantly reduce craving levels [24–29], while two studies applied 1 Hz stimulation to the left DLPFC and reached inconsistent conclusions (one reduced cravings, the other increased cravings) [30, 31]. Li etal.’s study suggested that a single session of 1Hz rTMS intervention on the left DLPFC could increase methamphetamine cue-induced craving levels [30]. In six studies on cocaine use disorder, two studies indicated that multiple high-frequency (15Hz) rTMS interven­tions on the DLPFC could reduce craving levels [32, 33]. A study targeting the mPFC and ACC suggested that both 1 and 10Hz showed no signicant differences from the sham rTMS stimulation group [34]. Studies on opioid use disorder also mainly tar­geted the left DLPFC, with three indicating a signicant effect on craving and one reporting no difference from sham rTMS intervention [35–38]. It is worth noting that although many studies emphasize the close relationship between craving levels and relapse [39], there are several inconsistencies between “craving” and “relapse” con­clusions in rTMS studies. For example, Martinez’s results found that rTMS treatment reduced cocaine use, but had no difference in the impact on craving compared to the sham treatment [34], while Lolli etal.’s study showed the opposite [32]. Therefore, it is necessary to have a clear denition and outcome measures to determine which treatment protocols is more suitable for patients with addictive disorder.