ArticleNeuroscience letters2020
Application of long-interval paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation to motion-sensitive visual cortex does not lead to changes in motion discrimination.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Upper Limb Dystonia in Patients With Wilson's Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Intensity- and timing-dependent modulation of motion perception with transcranial magnetic stimulation of visual cortex.Neuropsychologia · 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
17 authors.
Funding
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
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.