Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24150916›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2014

Numerical modelling of plasticity induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

M T Wilson, D P Goodwin, P W Brownjohn, J Shemmell, J N J Reynolds

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Numerical Modelling of Plasticity Induced by Quadri-Pulse Stimulation.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation.International review of psychiatry (Abingdon, England) · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M T WilsonSchool of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand, m.wilson@waikato.ac.nz.
D P Goodwin
P W Brownjohn
J Shemmell
J N J Reynolds

Funding

Wellcome Trust 092096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We use neural field theory and spike-timing dependent plasticity to make a simple but biophysically reasonable model of long-term plasticity changes in the cortex due to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We show how common TMS protocols can be captured and studied within existing neural field theory. Specifically, we look at repetitive TMS protocols such as theta burst stimulation and paired-pulse protocols. Continuous repetitive protocols result mostly in depression, but intermittent repetitive protocols in potentiation. A paired pulse protocol results in depression at short ( < ∼ 10 ms) and long ( > ∼ 100 ms) interstimulus intervals, but potentiation for mid-range intervals. The model is sensitive to the choice of neural populations that are driven by the TMS pulses, and to the parameters that describe plasticity, which may aid interpretation of the high variability in existing experimental results. Driving excitatory populations results in greater plasticity changes than driving inhibitory populations. Modelling also shows the merit in optimizing a TMS protocol based on an individual's electroencephalogram. Moreover, the model can be used to make predictions about protocols that may lead to improvements in repetitive TMS outcomes.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAction PotentialsEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansMotor CortexNeural InhibitionNeuronal Plasticity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.