Trial reportCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2017
Motor cortex inhibition by TMS reduces cognitive non-motor procedural learning when immediate incentives are present.
Trial report in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 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.
- Probing the Brain-Body Connection Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS): Validating a Promising Tool to Provide Biomarkers of Neuroplasticity and Central Nervous System Function.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Motor cortex modulation and reward in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Brain communications · 2021Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor area (M1) impairs motor sequence-learning, but not basic motor function. It is unknown if this is specific for motor forms of procedural learning or a more general effect. To investigate, we tested the effect of M1-inhibition on the weather prediction task (WPT), a learning task with minimal motor learning component. In the WPT, participants learn arbitrary, probabilistic, associations between sets of meaningless cues and fictional outcomes. In our "Feedback" (FB) condition, they received monetary rewards/punishments during learning. In the "paired associate" (PA) condition they learned the same information by passive observation of associations. The observational and feedback learning conditions were matched for their non-learning-specific motor demands. In each of two FB or PA sessions, we delivered Real (inhibitory) or Sham continuous theta-burst (cTBS) to the left-M1, before 150 training-trials. We then tested learning with 42 trials without feedback immediately after learning and again 1-h after cTBS. Compared to Sham, Real cTBS reduced performance during FB-learning, when learning was immediately reinforced, but not when knowledge was tested after PA learning. Furthermore, when FB-based memory was tested after learning without immediate incentive, there was no effect of TMS compared to post-PA test performance, showing the TMS effect operated only in the presence of incentive and feedback. We conclude that M1 is a node in a network underlying feedback-driven procedural learning and inhibitory rTMS there results in decreased network efficiency.
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.