ArticlePloS one2020
Ten minutes of transcranial static magnetic field stimulation does not reliably modulate motor cortex excitability.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Home-based transcranial static magnetic field stimulation - concept, development, and clinical applications: IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
- Re-evaluating transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS): No inhibitory effects on motor cortex across hemispheres.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Transient Modulation of Working Memory Performance and Event-Related Potentials by Transcranial Static Magnetic Field Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Null Effect of Transcranial Static Magnetic Field Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Behavioral Performance in a Go/NoGo Task.Brain sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, modulatory effects of static magnetic field stimulation (tSMS) on excitability of the motor cortex have been reported. In our previous study we failed to replicate these results. It was suggested that the lack of modulatory effects was due to the use of an auditory oddball task in our study. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the role of an oddball task on the effects of tSMS on motor cortex excitability. In a within-subject-design we compared 10 minutes tSMS with and without oddball task. In one of the two sessions subjects had to solve an auditory oddball task during the exposure to the magnet, whereas there was no task during exposure in the other session. Motor cortex excitability was measured before and after tSMS. No modulation was observed in any condition. However, when data were pooled regarding the order of the sessions, a trend for an increase of excitability was observed in the first session compared to the second session. We now can rule out that the auditory oddball task destroys tSMS effects, as postulated. Our results rather suggest that fluctuations in the amplitudes of single pulse motor evoked potentials may possibly mask weak modulatory effects but may also lead to false positive results if the number of subjects in a study is too low. In addition, there might be a habituation effect to the whole procedure, resulting in less variability when subjects underwent the same experiment twice.
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.