Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32413540›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience letters2020

Application of long-interval paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation to motion-sensitive visual cortex does not lead to changes in motion discrimination.

Olga Lucia Gamboa, Alexandra Brito, Zachary Abzug, Tracy D'Arbeloff, Lysianne Beynel, Erik A Wing, Moritz Dannhauer, Hannah Palmer, Susan A Hilbig, Courtney A Crowell and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Olga Lucia GamboaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Alexandra BritoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Zachary AbzugDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, United States.
Tracy D'ArbeloffDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States; Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, United States.
Lysianne BeynelDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Erik A WingDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, United States.
Moritz DannhauerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Hannah PalmerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Susan A HilbigDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Courtney A CrowellDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Sicong LiuDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Rachel DonaldsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Roberto CabezaDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, United States; Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, United States.
Simon W DavisCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, United States; Department of Neurology, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Angel V PeterchevDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, United States; Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Duke University, United States; Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Marc A SommerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, United States; Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, United States; Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, United States; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Lawrence G AppelbaumDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States; Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, United States. Electronic address: greg@duke.edu.

Funding

Impact of Timing, Targeting, and Brain State on rTMS of Human and Non-Human PrimatesRF1MH114253 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI SOMMER, MARC A · 2017 to 2017
$3.0M
NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH114253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perception of visual motion is dependent on a set of occipitotemporal regions that are readily accessible to neuromodulation. The current study tested if paired-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (ppTMS) could modulate motion perception by stimulating the occipital cortex as participants viewed near-threshold motion dot stimuli. In this sham-controlled study, fifteen subjects completed two sessions. On the first visit, resting motor threshold (RMT) was assessed, and participants performed an adaptive direction discrimination task to determine individual motion sensitivity. During the second visit, subjects performed the task with three difficulty levels as TMS pulses were delivered 150 and 50 ms prior to motion stimulus onset at 120% RMT, under the logic that the cumulative inhibitory effect of these pulses would alter motion sensitivity. ppTMS was delivered at one of two locations: 3 cm dorsal and 5 cm lateral to inion (scalp-based coordinate), or at the site of peak activation for "motion" according to the NeuroSynth fMRI database (meta-analytic coordinate). Sham stimulation was delivered on one-third of trials by tilting the coil 90°. Analyses showed no significant active-versus-sham effects of ppTMS when stimulation was delivered to the meta-analytic (p = 0.15) or scalp-based coordinates (p = 0.17), which were separated by 29 mm on average. Active-versus-sham stimulation differences did not interact with either stimulation location (p = 0.12) or difficulty (p = 0.33). These findings fail to support the hypothesis that long-interval ppTMS recruits inhibitory processes in motion-sensitive cortex but must be considered within the limited parameters used in this design.

Indexed as

Transcranial Magnetic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotion PerceptionMotor CortexNeural InhibitionOccipital LobeRestVisual CortexhMT+Motion Sensitive CortexPaired Pulse TMSTranscranial Magnetic StimulationVisual Motion

Identifiers

PMID32413540
PMCPMC7313683

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.