ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021
A Study on the Effect of Mental Practice Using Motor Evoked Potential-Based Neurofeedback.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motor imagery perspective shapes corticospinal excitability with effector-specific effects.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- TMS-Based Neurofeedback Training of Mental Finger Individuation Induces Neuroplastic Changes in the Sensorimotor System.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- The dissemination effect of human-computer interactive advertising news-Using the theory of media audience and emotion management.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate whether the effect of mental practice (motor imagery training) can be enhanced by providing neurofeedback based on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced motor evoked potentials (MEP). Twenty-four healthy, right-handed subjects were enrolled in this study. The subjects were randomly allocated into two groups: a group that was given correct TMS feedback (Real-FB group) and a group that was given randomized false TMS feedback (Sham-FB group). The subjects imagined pushing the switch with just timing, when the target circle overlapped a cross at the center of the computer monitor. In the Real-FB group, feedback was provided to the subjects based on the MEP amplitude measured in the trial immediately preceding motor imagery. In contrast, the subjects of the Sham-FB group were provided with a feedback value that was independent of the MEP amplitude. TMS was applied when the target, moving from right to left, overlapped the cross at the center of the screen, and the MEP amplitude was measured. The MEP was recorded in the right first dorsal interosseous muscle. We evaluated the pre-mental practice and post-mental practice motor performance in both groups. As a result, a significant difference was observed in the percentage change of error values between the Real-FB group and the Sham-FB group. Furthermore, the MEP was significantly different between the groups in the 4th and 5th sets. Therefore, it was suggested that TMS-induced MEP-based neurofeedback might enhance the effect of mental practice.
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.