ArticleHuman brain mapping2015
Nonphysiological factors in navigated TMS studies; confounding covariates and valid intracortical estimates.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-evaluating transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS): No inhibitory effects on motor cortex across hemispheres.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- The spatio-functional cortical representation of muscles innervated by the accessory nerve using nTMS.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2025Article
- Developmental models of motor-evoked potential features by transcranial magnetic stimulation across age groups from childhood to adulthood.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Selective Stimulus Intensity during Hotspot Search Ensures Faster and More Accurate Preoperative Motor Mapping with nTMS.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Assessment of Motor Evoked Potentials in Multiple Sclerosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Mapping of Motor Function with Neuronavigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Review on Clinical Application in Brain Tumors and Methods for Ensuring Feasible Accuracy.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Comparing cortico-motor hotspot identification methods in the lower extremities post-stroke: MEP amplitude vs. latency.Neuroscience letters · 2021Observational
- Evidence for a Window of Enhanced Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex Following Ischemic Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2021Article
- Investigating the Intervention Parameters of Endogenous Paired Associative Stimulation (ePAS).Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Case Report: Multimodal Functional and Structural Evaluation Combining Pre-operative nTMS Mapping and Neuroimaging With Intraoperative CT-Scan and Brain Shift Correction for Brain Tumor Surgical Resection.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- TMS Motor Mapping Methodology and Reliability: A Structured Review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Human Premotor Corticospinal Projections Are Engaged in Motor Preparation at Discrete Time Intervals: A TMS-Induced Virtual Lesion Study.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2021Article
- Individualized Template MRI Is a Valid and Reliable Alternative to Individual MRI for Spatial Tracking in Navigated TMS Studies in Healthy Subjects.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Localization of Sensorimotor Cortex Using Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Magnetoencephalography.Brain topography · 2019Article
- Motor Task-Dependent Dissociated Effects of Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation in a Finger-Tapping Task Versus a Go/No-Go Task on Corticospinal Excitability and Task Performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Current status and potential application of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurosurgery: a literature review.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2019Review
- Accurate Coil Positioning is Important for Single and Paired Pulse TMS on the Subject Level.Brain topography · 2018Article
- Cortical representation of auricular muscles in humans: A robot-controlled TMS mapping and fMRI study.PloS one · 2018Article
- Effects of posture and coactivation on corticomotor excitability of ankle muscles.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledBrain stimulation is used to induce transient alterations of neural excitability to probe or modify brain function. For example, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex can probe corticospinal excitability (CSE). Yet, CSE measurements are confounded by a high level of variability. This variability is due to physical and physiological factors. Navigated TMS (nTMS) systems can record physical parameters of the TMS coil (tilt, location, and orientation) and some also estimate intracortical electric fields (EFs) on a trial-by-trial basis. Thus, these parameters can be partitioned with stepwise regression. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to dissociate variance due to physical parameters from variance due to physiological factors for CSE estimates. The secondary objective was to establish the predictive validity of EF estimates from spherical head models. HYPOTHESIS: Variability of physical parameters of TMS predicts CSE variability.
methodsEvent-related measurements of physical parameters were analyzed in stepwise regression. Partitioned parameter variance and predictive validity were compared for a target-controlled and a nontarget-controlled experiment. A control experiment (preinnervation) confirmed the validity of linear data analysis. A bias-free model quantified the effect of divergence from optimum.
resultsPartitioning physical parameter variance reduces CSE variability. EF estimates from spherical models were valid. Post hoc analyses showed that even small physical fluctuations can confound the statistical comparison of CSE measurements.
conclusionsIt is necessary to partition physical and physiological variance in TMS studies to make confounded data interpretable. The spatial resolution of nTMS is <5 mm and the EF-estimates are valid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.