Trial reportScientific reports2025
Compared motor learning effects of motor cortical and cerebellar repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation during a serial reaction time task in older adults.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Effects of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targets for Enhancing Motor Learning: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Neural plasticity · 2026Trial
- Cerebellar anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improves implicit mentalizing sequence learning: A double-blind sham-controlled study.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- The cerebellar-related cognitive function is sensitive to aging: implications for early detection.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- A multimodal machine learning model for predicting postoperative worsening of FOGQ in Parkinson's disease following STN-DBS.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a technique used to enhance motor learning in older adults. Some studies have shown that applying rTMS to the primary motor cortex (M1) and the cerebellum enhances motor learning. This study investigates the effects of M1 rTMS and cerebellar rTMS on motor learning in older adults. Seventy healthy older participants were randomly divided into M1, cerebellar rTMS, and sham rTMS groups. Participants completed the Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT), while receiving 10 min of 10 Hz rTMS, with the sham group receiving inactive stimulation. Reaction time (RT) and error rate (ER) were recorded before, immediately, and 48 h post-task. RT and ER decreased immediately after the SRTT in all groups (P < 0.001). Both intervention groups showed greater online motor learning than the sham group (P < 0.05). Additionally, both intervention groups exhibited offline motor learning and learning consolidation with more significant changes in the cerebellar-rTMS group during lasting time (P < 0.03), whereas the sham rTMS group could not maintain motor learning (P > 0.05). The findings suggest that both M1 and cerebellar rTMS enhance motor learning in healthy older adults, with cerebellar rTMS being more effective in consolidating motor learning.
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.