ArticleeNeuro2024
State-Dependent Motor Cortex Stimulation Reveals Distinct Mechanisms for Corticospinal Excitability and Cortical Responses.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of transcranial magnetic brain stimulation.Physiological reviews · 2026Review
- Dose-dependent power and connectivity modulation of low frequency oscillations through transcranial magnetic stimulation in non-human primates.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
- From Oscillations to Brain States: Real-Time EEG-TMS for Adaptive Neuromodulation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Precision in Delivery, Variability in Response: A Multiscale Mechanistic Framework for Neuronavigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Primary Somatosensory to Motor Cortex Microstructural Connectivity Predicts the Mu-Rhythm Phase Effect on Corticospinal Excitability: An EEG-TMS Study.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Mu-Rhythm Phase Modulates Cortical Reactivity to Subthreshold TMS: A TMS-EEG Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reopening Motor Learning Windows: Targeted Re-Engagement of Latent Pathways via Non-Invasive Neuromodulation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Dose-dependent power and connectivity modulation of low frequency oscillations through transcranial magnetic stimulation in non-human primates.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Causal disconnectomics of motion perception networks: insights from transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced BOLD responses.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Neurodevelopmental considerations for transcranial magnetic stimulation trials in youth.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- State-Dependent Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Synchronized with Electroencephalography: Mechanisms, Applications, and Future Directions.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Neural signatures of engagement in driving: comparing active control and passive observation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Temporal neural coupling: reconciling the Bobath concept with task-oriented training for post-stroke upper limb recovery-a perspective.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.