ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2018
Optimization of Proprioceptive Stimulation Frequency and Movement Range for fMRI.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural Mechanisms of Feedback Processing and Regulation Recalibration During Neurofeedback Training.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Identification of proprioceptive thalamocortical tracts in children: comparison of fMRI, MEG, and manual seeding of probabilistic tractography.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2022Article
- Gating Patterns to Proprioceptive Stimulation in Various Cortical Areas: An MEG Study in Children and Adults using Spatial ICA.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021Article
- Stronger proprioceptive BOLD-responses in the somatosensory cortices reflect worse sensorimotor function in adolescents with and without cerebral palsy.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2021Article
- Gratifying Gizmos for Research and Clinical MEG.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Neural correlates of kinematic features of passive finger movement revealed by univariate and multivariate fMRI analyses.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For vision, audition and tactile sense, the optimal stimulus frequency for fMRI is somewhat known. For proprioception, i.e., the "movement sense", however, the optimal frequency is unknown. We studied the effect of passive-finger-movement frequency on proprioceptive fMRI responses using a novel pneumatic-movement actuator. Eleven healthy right-handed volunteers participated in the study. The movement actuator passively moved the participant's right index finger at frequencies of 0.3, 1, 3, 6, 9, or 12 Hz in a blocked design. A functional localizer was used to define regions-of-interest in SI and SII cortices. In addition, effect of movement range on the fMRI responses was tested in a separate session with 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm movement ranges at a fixed 2 Hz frequency. In primary somatosensory (SI) cortex, the responses were stronger at 3 Hz than at 0.3 Hz (
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.