Trial reportExperimental brain research2019
Motor-cortex excitability and response variability following paired-associative stimulation: a proof-of-concept study comparing individualized and fixed inter-stimulus intervals.
Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stable Enhancement of Corticospinal Excitability by the Combination of Paired Associative Stimulation and Interlimb Cortical Network.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Targeted Modulation of Human Brain Interregional Effective Connectivity With Spike-Timing Dependent Plasticity.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2023Article
- Impact of operator experience on transcranial magnetic stimulation.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2022Article
- Comparative study of motor cortical excitability changes following anodal tDCS or high-frequency tRNS in relation to stimulation duration.Physiological reports · 2020Article
- Brain Response Induced with Paired Associative Stimulation Is Related to Repetition Suppression of Motor Evoked Potential.Brain sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While diverging efficacy and inter-individual response variability have repeatedly been reported for paired-associative stimulation (PAS), approaches to overcome these issues are yet lacking. Hence, the aim of the present study was to determine whether response variability could be reduced through the application of an individualized PAS paradigm. Changes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) elicited motor-evoked potentials (MEP) following different PAS paradigms were assessed in three experimental conditions. According to a within-subjects design, 21 participants received three consecutive PAS paradigms differing with respect to the applied inter-stimulus intervals (ISI) between peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) and TMS. Based on foregoing considerations, we compared fixed ISI of 25 ms (PAS 25) and 22 ms (PAS 22) to an individualized PAS paradigm accounting for conduction time differences on the single subject level (iPAS). Overall, we did not observe significantly increased post-stimulation MEP magnitudes in any of the three experimental paradigms. Explorative analyses revealed increased inter-individual response variability in case of PAS 25 and PAS 22 compared to higher rates of expected MEP magnitude increases in case of our iPAS paradigm. The findings of our proof-of-concept study points towards a potential association of decreased inter-individual variability with individually selected ISI that account for differences in conduction time. However, as our findings did not reach the significance threshold, our study highlights the issue of intra-individual variability in PAS paradigms. Further replication studies with larger sample sizes and repetitive designs are needed to confirm our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31025050What 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.