ArticleHuman brain mapping2022
Robotic mapping of motor cortex in children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficient Gaussian process-based motor hotspot hunting with concurrent optimization of TMS coil location and orientation.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Robotic mapping of motor cortex in children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis.Human brain mapping · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Brain stimulation combined with intensive therapy may improve hand function in children with perinatal stroke-induced unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP). However, response to therapy varies and underlying neuroplasticity mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we aimed to characterize robotic motor mapping outcomes in children with UCP. Twenty-nine children with perinatal stroke and UCP (median age 11 ± 2 years) were compared to 24 typically developing controls (TDC). Robotic, neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation was employed to define bilateral motor maps including area, volume, and peak motor evoked potential (MEP). Map outcomes were compared to the primary clinical outcome of the Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function (JTT). Maps were reliably obtained in the contralesional motor cortex (24/29) but challenging in the lesioned hemisphere (5/29). Within the contralesional M1 of participants with UCP, area and peak MEP amplitude of the unaffected map were larger than the affected map. When comparing bilateral maps within the contralesional M1 in children with UCP to that of TDC, only peak MEP amplitudes were different, being smaller for the affected hand as compared to TDC. We observed correlations between the unaffected map when stimulating the contralesional M1 and function of the unaffected hand. Robotic motor mapping can characterize motor cortex neurophysiology in children with perinatal stroke. Map area and peak MEP amplitude may represent discrete biomarkers of developmental plasticity in the contralesional M1. Correlations between map metrics and hand function suggest clinical relevance and utility in studies of interventional plasticity.
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.