ArticleExperimental brain research2020
Muscle-specific modulation of indirect inputs to primary motor cortex during action observation.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The recruitment of indirect waves within primary motor cortex during motor imagery: A directional transcranial magnetic stimulation study.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
- Intracortical facilitation and inhibition in human primary motor cortex during motor skill acquisition.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Motor cortex plasticity and visuomotor skill learning in upper and lower limbs of endurance-trained cyclists.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Article
- Good test-retest reliability of a paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation protocol to measure short-interval intracortical facilitation.Experimental brain research · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (spTMS) studies report that movement observation facilitates corticospinal excitability in primary motor cortex (M1) in a muscle-specific manner. However, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by spTMS are known to reflect the summation of several descending volleys in corticospinal neurons which are evoked via mono- and polysynaptic inputs (so-called indirect waves or I-waves). It is unclear which of these components contribute to the muscle-specific modulation of M1 during action observation. The interactions between different I-waves are reflected in the facilitatory peaks elicited with a short-intracortical facilitation (SICF) protocol when two pulses are sent to M1 at precise intervals (i.e., 1.3, 2.5 or 4.1 ms). Here, we explored the modulation of early and late SICF peaks during action observation by measuring highly specific MEP amplitude changes measured in two muscles (index, FDI and little finger, ADM) while participants observed two different actions (precision and whole-hand grip). Our results demonstrate that both early (1.3 ms) and late (2.5 and 4.1 ms) SICF peaks are modulated in the context of movement observation. However, only the second peak (ISI 2.5 ms) was significantly associated with the muscle-specific modulation of corticospinal excitability as measured with spTMS. This late SICF peak is believed to reflect the activity cortico-cortical pathways involved in the facilitation of muscle-specific representations in M1. Thus, our findings suggest that movement observation leads to widespread activation of different neural circuits within M1, including those mediating cortico-cortical communication.
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.