ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020
Explaining Individual Differences in Motor Behavior by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity and Corticospinal Excitability.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oscillatory dynamics of motor learning across adulthood life span: a systematic review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping the Causal Roles of Non-Primary Motor Areas in Human Reach Planning and Execution.Human brain mapping · 2026Trial
- Multiple bouts of high-intensity interval exercise reverse age-related functional connectivity disruptions without affecting motor learning in older adults.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Motor performance and functional connectivity between the posterior cingulate cortex and supplementary motor cortex in bipolar and unipolar depression.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024Article
- Deep Neural Regression Prediction of Motor Imagery Skills Using EEG Functional Connectivity Indicators.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor performance varies substantially between individuals. This variance is rooted in individuals' innate motor abilities, and should thus have a neural signature underlying these differences in behavior. Could these individual differences be detectable with neural measurements acquired at rest? Here, we tested the hypothesis that motor performance can be predicted by resting motor-system functional connectivity and motor-evoked-potentials (MEPs) induced by non-invasive brain stimulation. Twenty healthy right handed subjects performed structural and resting-state fMRI scans. On a separate day, MEPs were measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the contrateral primary motor cortex (M1). At the end of the session, participants performed a finger-tapping task using their left non-dominant hand. Resting-state functional connectivity between the contralateral M1 and the supplementary motor area (SMA) predicted motor task performance, indicating that individuals with stronger resting M1-SMA functional connectivity exhibit better motor performance. This prediction was neither improved nor reduced by the addition of corticospinal excitability to the model. These results confirm that motor behavior can be predicted from neural measurements acquired prior to task performance, primarily relying on resting functional connectivity rather than corticospinal excitability. The ability to predict motor performance from resting neural markers, provides an opportunity to identify the extent of successful rehabilitation following neurological damage.
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.