ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022
Accounting for Stimulations That Do Not Elicit Motor-Evoked Potentials When Mapping Cortical Representations of Multiple Muscles.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Changes in Primary Motor Cortex Organization and Associations With Changes in Motor-Sensory Tests Over Time in Relation to Low Back Pain Recovery. A Longitudinal Study.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- The reliability and validity of rapid transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping for muscles under active contraction.BMC neuroscience · 2024Article
- Differences in the organization of the primary motor cortex in people with and without low back pain and associations with motor control and sensory tests.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Overlap in the cortical representation of hand and forearm muscles as assessed by navigated TMS.Neuroimage. Reports · 2023Article
- Associations between primary motor cortex organization, motor control and sensory tests during the clinical course of low back pain. A protocol for a cross-sectional and longitudinal case-control study.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The representation of muscles in the cortex can be mapped using navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. The commonly employed measure to quantify the mapping are the center of gravity or the centroid of the region of excitability as well as its size. Determining these measures typically relies only on stimulation points that yield motor-evoked potentials (MEPs); stimulations that do not elicit an MEP, i.e., non-MEP points, are ignored entirely. In this study, we show how incorporating non-MEP points may affect the estimates of the size and centroid of the excitable area in eight hand and forearm muscles after mono-phasic single-pulse TMS. We performed test-retest assessments in twenty participants and estimated the reliability of centroids and sizes of the corresponding areas using inter-class correlation coefficients. For most muscles, the reliability turned out good. As expected, removing the non-MEP points significantly decreased area sizes and area weights, suggesting that conventional approaches that do not account for non-MEP points are likely to overestimate the regions of excitability.
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.