ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of the on-line effects of different motor simulation conditions on corticospinal excitability in healthy participants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Action Observation and Motor Imagery as a Treatment in Patients with Parkinson's Disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In healthy participants, corticospinal excitability is known to increase during motor simulations such as motor imagery (MI), action observation (AO) and mirror therapy (MT), suggesting their interest to promote plasticity in neurorehabilitation. Further comparing these methods and investigating their combination may potentially provide clues to optimize their use in patients. To this end, we compared in 18 healthy participants abductor pollicis brevis (APB) corticospinal excitability during MI, AO or MT, as well as MI combined with either AO or MT. In each condition, 15 motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and three maximal M-wave were elicited in the right APB. Compared to the control condition, mean normalized MEP amplitude (i.e. MEP/M) increased during MI (P = .003), MT (P < .001) and MT + MI (P < .001), without any difference between the three conditions. No MEP modulation was evidenced during AO or AO + MI. Because MI provided no additional influence when combined with AO or MT, our results may suggest that, in healthy subjects, visual feedback and unilateral movement with a mirror may provide the greatest effects among all the tested motor simulations.
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.