ArticleBrain sciences2024
Modulation of Corticospinal Excitability during Action Observation in Patients with Disorders of Consciousness.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain imaging studies have recently provided some evidence in favor of covert cognitive processes that are ongoing in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) (e.g., a minimally conscious state and vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) when engaged in passive sensory stimulation or active tasks such as motor imagery. In this exploratory study, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex to assess modulations of corticospinal excitability induced by action observation in eleven patients with DoC. Action observation is known to facilitate corticospinal excitability in healthy subjects, unveiling how the observer's motor system maps others' actions onto her/his motor repertoire. Additional stimuli were non-biological motion and acoustic startle stimuli, considering that sudden and loud acoustic stimulation is known to lower corticospinal excitability in healthy subjects. The results indicate that some form of motor resonance is spared in a subset of patients with DoC, with some significant difference between biological and non-biological motion stimuli. However, there was no covariation between corticospinal excitability and the type of DoC diagnosis (i.e., whether diagnosed with VS/UWS or MCS). Similarly, no covariation was detected with clinical changes between admission and discharge in clinical outcome measures. Both motor resonance and the difference between the resonance with biological/non-biological motion discrimination correlated with the amplitude of the N20 somatosensory evoked potentials, following the stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist (i.e., the temporal marker signaling the activation of the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex). Moreover, the startle-evoking stimulus produced an anomalous increase in corticospinal excitability, suggesting a functional dissociation between cortical and subcortical circuits in patients with DoC. Further work is needed to better comprehend the conditions in which corticospinal facilitation occurs and whether and how they may relate to individual clinical parameters.
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.