Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35355218›Full record

ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2023

Cerebellar noninvasive neuromodulation influences the reactivity of the contralateral primary motor cortex and surrounding areas: a TMS-EMG-EEG study.

Rocchi L, Spampinato DA, Pezzopane V, Orth M, Bisiacchi Ps, Rothwell Jc, Casula Ep

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Rocchi LDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Spampinato DADepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Pezzopane VLaboratory of Experimental Neuropsychophysiology, IRCCS Fondazione S. Lucia, Via Ardeatina, 306, 00179, Rome, Italy.
Orth MDepartment of Neurology, Ulm University Hospital, Helmholtzstraße, 16, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Bisiacchi PsDepartment of General Psychology and Padova Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, Via 8 Febbraio, 2, 35122, Padova, Italy.
Rothwell JcDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Casula EpDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. elias.casula@gmail.com.
Fondazione Santa Lucia · ITNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GBHelmholtz-Institute Ulm · DEUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 798957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding cerebellar-cortical physiological interactions is of fundamental importance to advance the efficacy of neurorehabilitation strategies for patients with cerebellar damage. Previous works have aimed to modulate this pathway by applying transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the cerebellum and probing the resulting changes in the primary motor cortex (M1) excitability with motor-evoked potentials (MEPs). While these protocols produce changes in cerebellar excitability, their ability to modulate MEPs has produced inconsistent results, mainly due to the MEP being a highly variable outcome measure that is susceptible to fluctuations in the excitability of M1 neurons and spinal interneurons. To overcome this limitation, we combined TMS with electroencephalography (EEG) to directly record TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) and oscillations from the scalp. In three sessions, we applied intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), cathodal direct current stimulation (c-DC) or sham stimulation to modulate cerebellar activity. To assess the effects on M1 and nearby cortex, we recorded TMS-EEG and MEPs before, immediately after (T1) and 15 min (T2) following cerebellar neuromodulation. We found that cerebellar iTBS immediately increased TMS-induced alpha oscillations and produced lasting facilitatory effects on TEPs, whereas c-DC immediately decreased TMS-induced alpha oscillations and reduced TEPs. We also found increased MEP following iTBS but not after c-DC. All of the TMS-EEG measures showed high test-retest repeatability. Overall, this work importantly shows that cerebellar neuromodulation influences both cortical and corticospinal physiological measures; however, they are more pronounced and detailed when utilizing TMS-EEG outcome measures. These findings highlight the advantage of using TMS-EEG over MEPs when assessing the effects of neuromodulation.

Indexed as

Motor CortexTranscranial Direct Current StimulationCerebellumElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBrain oscillationsCerebellumElectroencephalographyMotor cortexTMS-EEGTranscranial evoked potentialsTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35355218
OpenAlexW4221018411

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.