ArticleHuman brain mapping2017
Exploring the contributions of the supplementary eye field to subliminal inhibition using double-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to Test the Association Between Baseline Performance Level and the Modulatory Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- On the Mechanisms of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS): How Brain State and Baseline Performance Level Determine Behavioral Effects of TMS.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is widely accepted that the supplementary eye fields (SEF) are involved in the control of voluntary eye movements. However, recent evidence suggests that SEF may also be important for unconscious and involuntary motor processes. Indeed, Sumner et al. ([2007]: Neuron 54:697-711) showed that patients with micro-lesions of the SEF demonstrated an absence of subliminal inhibition as evoked by masked-prime stimuli. Here, we used double-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in healthy volunteers to investigate the role of SEF in subliminal priming. We applied double-pulse TMS at two time windows in a masked-prime task: the first during an early phase, 20-70 ms after the onset of the mask but before target presentation, during which subliminal inhibition is present; and the second during a late phase, 20-70 ms after target onset, during which the saccade is being prepared. We found no effect of TMS with the early time window of stimulation, whereas a reduction in the benefit of an incompatible subliminal prime stimulus was found when SEF TMS was applied at the late time window. These findings suggest that there is a role for SEF related to the effects of subliminal primes on eye movements, but the results do not support a role in inhibiting the primed tendency. Hum Brain Mapp 38:339-351, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.