Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34269850›Full record

ReviewExperimental brain research2021

Age-related changes in motor cortex plasticity assessed with non-invasive brain stimulation: an update and new perspectives.

John G Semmler, Brodie J Hand, Ryoki Sasaki, Ashley Merkin, George M Opie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Repeated spaced paired-associative stimulation to the parietal-motor pathway maintains corticomotor excitability in older adults.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

John G SemmlerDiscipline of Physiology, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia. john.semmler@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0260-8047
Brodie J HandDiscipline of Physiology, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
Ryoki SasakiDiscipline of Physiology, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
Ashley MerkinDiscipline of Physiology, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
George M OpieDiscipline of Physiology, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DP200101009National Health and Medical Research Council APP1139723Uehara Memorial Foundation 201830079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is commonly accepted that the brains capacity to change, known as plasticity, declines into old age. Recent studies have used a variety of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques to examine this age-related decline in plasticity in the primary motor cortex (M1), but the effects seem inconsistent and difficult to unravel. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on studies that have used different NIBS techniques to assess M1 plasticity with advancing age and offer some new perspective on NIBS strategies to boost plasticity in the ageing brain. We find that early studies show clear differences in M1 plasticity between young and older adults, but many recent studies with motor training show no decline in use-dependent M1 plasticity with age. For NIBS-induced plasticity in M1, some protocols show more convincing differences with advancing age than others. Therefore, our view from the NIBS literature is that it should not be automatically assumed that M1 plasticity declines with age. Instead, the effects of age are likely to depend on how M1 plasticity is measured, and the characteristics of the elderly population tested. We also suggest that NIBS performed concurrently with motor training is likely to be most effective at producing improvements in M1 plasticity and motor skill learning in older adults. Proposed NIBS techniques for future studies include combining multiple NIBS protocols in a co-stimulation approach, or NIBS strategies to modulate intracortical inhibitory mechanisms, in an effort to more effectively boost M1 plasticity and improve motor skill learning in older adults.

Indexed as

Motor CortexAgedBrainEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansNeuronal PlasticityTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAgeingMotor cortexMotor skill learningNeuroplasticityTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.