ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2023
Cortically Evoked Movement in Humans Reflects History of Prior Executions, Not Plan for Upcoming Movement.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corticospinal excitability at rest outside of a task does not differ from task intertrial intervals in healthy adults.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human motor behavior involves planning and execution of actions, some more frequently. Manipulating probability distribution of a movement through intensive direction-specific repetition causes physiological bias toward that direction, which can be cortically evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, because evoked movement has not been used to distinguish movement execution and plan histories to date, it is unclear whether the bias is because of frequently executed movements or recent planning of movement. Here, in a cohort of 40 participants (22 female), we separately manipulate the recent history of movement plans and execution and probe the resulting effects on physiological biases using TMS and on the default plan for goal-directed actions using a timed-response task. Baseline physiological biases shared similar low-level kinematic properties (direction) to a default plan for upcoming movement. However, manipulation of recent execution history via repetitions toward a specific direction significantly affected physiological biases, but not plan-based goal-directed movement. To further determine whether physiological biases reflect ongoing motor planning, we biased plan history by increasing the likelihood of a specific target location and found a significant effect on the default plan for goal-directed movements. However, TMS-evoked movement during preparation did not become biased toward the most frequent plan. This suggests that physiological biases may either provide a readout of the default state of primary motor cortex population activity in the movement-related space, but not ongoing neural activation in the planning-related space, or that practice induces sensitization of neurons involved in the practiced movement, calling into question the relevance of cortically evoked physiological biases to voluntary movements.
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.