Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38197162›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2024

Transcranial magnetic stimulation over supramarginal gyrus stimulates primary motor cortex directly and impairs manual dexterity: implications for TMS focality.

Nicholas P Holmes, Nunzia Valentina Di Chiaro, Emily M Crowe, Ben Marson, Karen Göbel, Dominykas Gaigalas, Talia Jay, Abigail V Lockett, Eleanor S Powell, Silvia Zeni and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas P HolmesSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9268-4179
Nunzia Valentina Di ChiaroSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6204-5680
Emily M CroweSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8265-7791
Ben MarsonSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Karen GöbelSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Dominykas GaigalasSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Talia JaySchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Abigail V LockettSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Eleanor S PowellSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Silvia ZeniSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Arran T ReaderDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0273-6367
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on human motor cortex, the effective spatial resolution of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is often described as 5-20 mm, because small changes in TMS coil position can have large effects on motor-evoked potentials (MEPs). MEPs are often studied at rest, with muscles relaxed. During muscle contraction and movement, corticospinal excitability is higher, thresholds for effective stimulation are lower, and MEPs can be evoked from larger regions of scalp, so the effective spatial resolution of TMS is larger. We found that TMS over the supramarginal gyrus (SMG) impaired manual dexterity in the grooved pegboard task. It also resulted in short-latency MEPs in hand muscles, despite the coil being 55 mm away from the motor cortex hand area (M1). MEPs might be evoked by either a specific corticospinal connection from SMG or a remote but direct electromagnetic stimulation of M1. To distinguish these alternatives, we mapped MEPs across the scalp during rest, isotonic contraction, and manual dexterity tasks and ran electric field simulations to model the expected M1 activation from 27 scalp locations and four coil orientations. We also systematically reviewed studies using TMS during movement. Across five experiments, TMS over SMG reliably evoked MEPs during hand movement. These MEPs were consistent with direct M1 stimulation and substantially decreased corticospinal thresholds during natural movement. Systematic review suggested that 54 published experiments may have suffered from similar motor activation confounds. Our results have implications for the assumed spatial resolution of TMS, and especially when TMS is presented within 55 mm of the motor cortex.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorMotor CortexParietal LobeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultFemaleHandHumansMaleMotor SkillsMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalYoung Adultcorticospinal excitabilitymanual dexteritymappingmovementpegboard

Identifiers

PMID38197162
PMCPMC11551002
OpenAlexW4390701300

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.