Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39542735›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2024

State-Dependent Motor Cortex Stimulation Reveals Distinct Mechanisms for Corticospinal Excitability and Cortical Responses.

Nipun D Perera, Miles Wischnewski, Ivan Alekseichuk, Sina Shirinpour, Alexander Opitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Neurodevelopmental considerations for transcranial magnetic stimulation trials in youth.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Nipun D PereraDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8173-4529
Miles WischnewskiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
Ivan AlekseichukDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
Sina ShirinpourDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
Alexander OpitzDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 aopitz@umn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation method that modulates brain activity by inducing electric fields in the brain. Real-time, state-dependent stimulation with TMS has shown that neural oscillation phase modulates corticospinal excitability. However, such motor evoked potentials (MEPs) only indirectly reflect motor cortex activation and are unavailable at other brain regions of interest. The direct and secondary cortical effects of phase-dependent brain stimulation remain an open question. In this study, we recorded the cortical responses during single-pulse TMS using electroencephalography (EEG) concurrently with the MEP measurements in 20 healthy human volunteers (11 female). TMS was delivered at peak, rising, trough, and falling phases of mu (8-13 Hz) and beta (14-30 Hz) oscillations in the motor cortex. The cortical responses were quantified through TMS evoked potential components N15, P50, and N100 as peak-to-peak amplitudes (P50-N15 and P50-N100). We further analyzed whether the prestimulus frequency band power was predictive of the cortical responses. We demonstrated that phase-specific targeting modulates cortical responses. The phase relationship between cortical responses was different for early and late responses. In addition, pre-TMS mu oscillatory power and phase significantly predicted both early and late cortical EEG responses in mu-specific targeting, indicating the independent causal effects of phase and power. However, only pre-TMS beta power significantly predicted the early and late TEP components during beta-specific targeting. Further analyses indicated distinct roles of mu and beta power on cortical responses. These findings provide insight to mechanistic understanding of neural oscillation states in cortical and corticospinal activation in humans.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, MotorMotor CortexPyramidal TractsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultElectromyographyFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultbeta oscillationselectroencephalographymu oscillationsoscillation phaseoscillatory powertranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39542735
PMCPMC11595597

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.