ArticleScientific reports2024
Tactile versus motor imagery: differences in corticospinal excitability assessed with single-pulse TMS.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motor Intention Drives Corticospinal Facilitation during Interception Planning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Advances in transcranial magnetic stimulation for psychological symptom management in Parkinson's disease.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Tactile imagery affects cortical responses to vibrotactile stimulation of the fingertip.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Differential Hemodynamic Responses to Motor and Tactile Imagery: Insights from Multichannel fNIRS Mapping.Brain topography · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tactile Imagery (TI) remains a fairly understudied phenomenon despite growing attention to this topic in recent years. Here, we investigated the effects of TI on corticospinal excitability by measuring motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The effects of TI were compared with those of tactile stimulation (TS) and kinesthetic motor imagery (kMI). Twenty-two participants performed three tasks in randomly assigned order: imagine finger tapping (kMI); experience vibratory sensations in the middle finger (TS); and mentally reproduce the sensation of vibration (TI). MEPs increased during both kMI and TI, with a stronger increase for kMI. No statistically significant change in MEP was observed during TS. The demonstrated differential effects of kMI, TI and TS on corticospinal excitability have practical implications for devising the imagery-based and TS-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), particularly the ones intended to improve neurorehabilitation by evoking plasticity changes in sensorimotor circuitry.
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.