Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31143970›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2019

The effects of conditioning startling acoustic stimulation (SAS) on the corticospinal motor system: a SAS-TMS study.

Yen-Ting Chen, Shengai Li, Ping Zhou, Sheng Li

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. What Is the StartReact Effect?Acta physiologica (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yen-Ting ChenDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Shengai LiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Ping ZhouDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Sheng LiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. sheng.li@uth.tmc.edu.
Memorial Hermann Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Foundation · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

Imaging of 3D Innervation Zone Distribution in Spastic Muscles from High-Density Surface EMG RecordingsR21HD090453 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI LI, SHENG, ZHANG, YINGCHUN · 2017 to 2018
$434k
Breathing-controlled Electrical Stimulation for Phantom Pain ManagementR21HD087128 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI LI, SHENG · 2016 to 2017
$424k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD087128NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD090453NIH NICHD/NCMRR R21HD087128NIH NICHD/NCMRR R21HD090453
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) could cause transient effects on the primary motor cortex and its descending tracts after habituation of reflex responses. In the literature, there is evidence that the effects of SAS depend on the status of M1 excitability and delivery time of SAS. In this study, we aimed to comprehensively investigate the effects of SAS on the excitability of primary motor cortex. Eleven healthy subjects participated in this study. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was delivered to the hot spot for left biceps at rest and during isometric right elbow flexion (10, 30, and 60% of their maximum voluntary contraction, MVC). There were three SAS conditions: (1) No SAS; (2) SAS was delivered 50 ms prior to TMS (SAS50); (3) SAS 90 ms prior to TMS (SAS90). For each subject, the induced MEP amplitude was normalized to the largest response at rest with No SAS. Two-way ANOVAs (4 force levels × 3 SAS conditions) with repeated measures were used to determine the differences under different conditions. For the MEP amplitude, there were significant force level effect and FORCE LEVEL × SAS interactions. Specifically, the MEP amplitude increased with force level. Furthermore, post hoc analysis showed that the MEP amplitude reduced during SAS50 and SAS90 compared to No SAS only at rest. Our results provide evidence that a conditioning SAS causes a transient suppression of the corticospinal excitability at rest when it is delivered 50 ms and 90 ms prior to TMS. However, a conditioning SAS has no effect when the corticospinal excitability is already elevated with an external visual target.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexPyramidal TractsReflex, StartleTranscranial Magnetic StimulationCorticospinal excitabilityHumanMotor cortexReticulospinal excitabilityStartling acoustic stimulus (SAS)TMS

Identifiers

PMID31143970
PMCPMC6640121
OpenAlexW2946980118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.