ArticleBrain and behavior2018
Nonequivalent modulation of corticospinal excitability by positive and negative outcomes.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Paired Associative Stimulation on Cortical Plasticity in Agonist-Antagonist Muscle Representations.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Changes in Magnitude and Variability of Corticospinal Excitability During Rewarded Time-Sensitive Behavior.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2019Article
- Differential Effect of Visual and Proprioceptive Stimulation on Corticospinal Output for Reciprocal Muscles.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2019Article
- Nonequivalent modulation of corticospinal excitability by positive and negative outcomes.Brain and behavior · 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
Objective: The difference between positive and negative outcomes is important in trial-and-error decision-making processes and affects corticospinal excitability. This study investigated corticospinal excitability during the performance of trial-and-error decision-making tasks with varying competing behavioral outcomes. Methods: Each trial began with one of five colored circles presented as a cue. Each color represented a different reward probability, ranging from 10% to 90%. The subjects were instructed to decide whether to perform wrist flexion in response to the cue. Two seconds after the presentation of the cue, a reward stimulus (picture of a coin) or penalty stimulus (mauve circle) was randomly presented to the subject. If the picture of a coin appeared, the subjects received the coin after the experiment if they had performed wrist flexion, but not if they had not performed wrist flexion. If a mauve circle appeared, a coin was deducted from the total reward if the subjects had performed wrist flexion, but not if they had not performed wrist flexion. One second after the reward or penalty stimulus, transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to the primary motor cortex at the midpoint between the centers of gravity of the flexor carpi radialis (agonist) and extensor carpi radialis (antagonist) muscles. Results: Cumulative wrist flexions were positively correlated with reward probabilities. Motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes in agonist muscles were significantly higher when wrist flexion incurred a penalty than when it incurred a reward, but there was no difference in the MEP amplitudes of antagonist muscles. Conclusion: Positive and negative behavioral outcomes differentially altered behavior and corticospinal excitability, and unexpected penalties had a stronger effect on corticospinal excitability for agonist muscles.
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.