Trial reportPhysiological reports2021
Robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor maps and hand function in adolescents.
Trial report in Physiological reports, 2021. 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.
- Robotic mapping of motor cortex in children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhanced Motor Learning on Robotic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Motor Maps in Children.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping can characterize the neurophysiology of the motor system. Limitations including human error and the challenges of pediatric populations may be overcome by emerging robotic systems. We aimed to show that neuronavigated robotic motor mapping in adolescents could efficiently produce discrete maps of individual upper extremity muscles, the characteristics of which would correlate with motor behavior.
methodsTypically developing adolescents (TDA) underwent neuronavigated robotic TMS mapping of bilateral motor cortex. Representative maps of first dorsal interosseous (FDI), abductor pollicis brevis (APB), and abductor digiti minimi (ADM) muscles in each hand were created. Map features including area (primary), volume, and center of gravity were analyzed across different excitability regions (R100%, R75%, R50%, R25%). Correlations between map metrics and validated tests of hand motor function (Purdue Pegboard Test as primary) were explored.
resultsTwenty-four right-handed participants (range 12-18 years, median 15.5 years, 52% female) completed bilateral mapping and motor assessments with no serious adverse events or dropouts. Gender and age were associated with hand function and motor map characteristics. Full motor maps (R100%) for FDI did not correlate with motor function in either hand. Smaller excitability subset regions demonstrated reduced variance and dose-dependent correlations between primary map variables and motor function in the dominant hemisphere.
conclusionsHand function in TDA correlates with smaller subset excitability regions of robotic TMS motor map outcomes. Refined motor maps may have less variance and greater potential to quantify interventional neuroplasticity. Robotic TMS mapping is safe and feasible in adolescents.
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.