Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35748041›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2022

Active versus resting neuro-navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping.

Cynthia K Kahl, Adrianna Giuffre, James G Wrightson, Adam Kirton, Elizabeth G Condliffe, Frank P MacMaster, Ephrem Zewdie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Cynthia K KahlDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Adrianna GiuffreDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
James G WrightsonDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Adam KirtonDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5209-3374
Elizabeth G CondliffeDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Frank P MacMasterDepartment of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ephrem ZewdieDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1206-2471
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

Canadian Institute for Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping is a safe, non-invasive method that can be used to study corticomotor organization. Motor maps are typically acquired at rest, and comparisons to maps obtained during muscle activation have been both limited and contradictory. Understanding the relationship between functional activation of the corticomotor system as recorded by motor mapping is crucial for their use clinically and in research. The present study utilized robotic TMS paired with personalized neuro-navigation to examine the relationship between resting and active motor map measures and their relationship with motor performance. Twenty healthy right-handed participants underwent resting and active robotic TMS motor mapping of the first dorsal interosseous to 10% maximum voluntary contraction. Motor map parameters including map area, volume, and measures of map centrality were compared between techniques using paired sample tests of difference and Bland-Altman plots and analysis. Map area, volume, and hotspot magnitude were larger in the active motor maps, while map center of gravity and hotspot locations remained consistent between both maps. No associations were observed between motor maps and motor performance as measured by the Purdue Pegboard Test. Our findings support previous suggestions that maps scale with muscle contraction. Differences in mapping outcomes suggest rest and active motor maps may reflect functionally different corticomotor representations. Advanced analysis methods may better characterize the underlying neurophysiology of both types of motor mapping.

Indexed as

Motor CortexRobotic Surgical ProceduresBrain MappingEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansMuscle, SkeletalTranscranial Magnetic Stimulationmotor cortexmotor mappingnon-invasive brain stimulationrobotic procedurestranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35748041
PMCPMC9226845
OpenAlexW4283446276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.