Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27547181›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2016

Different Effects of Startling Acoustic Stimuli (SAS) on TMS-Induced Responses at Rest and during Sustained Voluntary Contraction.

Yen-Ting Chen, Shengai Li, Ping Zhou, Sheng Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Yen-Ting ChenDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science CenterHouston, TX, USA; The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann Research Center, The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann HospitalHouston, TX, USA.
Shengai LiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science CenterHouston, TX, USA; The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann Research Center, The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann HospitalHouston, TX, USA.
Ping ZhouDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science CenterHouston, TX, USA; The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann Research Center, The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann HospitalHouston, TX, USA; Guangdong Work Injury Rehabilitation CenterGuangzhou, China.
Sheng LiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science CenterHouston, TX, USA; The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann Research Center, The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann HospitalHouston, TX, USA.
Memorial Hermann · US

Funding

Breathing-controlled Electrical Stimulation for Phantom Pain ManagementR21HD087128 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI LI, SHENG · 2016 to 2017
$424k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD087128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that a habituated startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) can cause a transient suppression of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during light muscle contraction. However, it is still unknown whether this phenomenon persists when at rest or during a sustained voluntary contraction task. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a conditioning SAS has different effects. TMS was delivered to the hot spot for the left biceps on 11 subjects at rest both with and without a conditioning SAS. Of the 11subjects, 9 also had TMS delivered during isometric flexion of the left elbow, also with and without a conditioning SAS. TMS-induced MEPs, TMS-induced force, and silent periods were used to determine the effect of conditioning SAS. Consistent with previous findings, TMS-induced MEPs were smaller with a conditioning SAS (0.49 ± 0.37 mV) as compared without the SAS (0.69 ± 0.52 mV) at rest. However, a conditioning SAS during the voluntary contraction tasks resulted in a significant shortening of the MEP silent period (187.22 ± 22.99 ms with SAS vs. 200.56 ± 29.71 ms without SAS) without any changes in the amplitude of the MEP (1.37 ± 0.9 mV with SAS V.S. 1.32 ± 0.92 mV without SAS) or the TMS-induced force (3.11 ± 2.03 N-m with SAS V.S. 3.62 ± 1.33 N-m without SAS). Our results provide novel evidence that a conditioning SAS has different effects on the excitability of the motor cortex when at rest or during sustained voluntary contractions.

Indexed as

isometric contractionmotor evoked potentialsilent periodstartling acoustic stimulustranscranial magnetic stimulus

Identifiers

PMID27547181
PMCPMC4974269
OpenAlexW2499327277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.