ArticleScientific reports2025
Motor resonance and inhibitory mechanisms in action observation as revealed by corticospinal excitability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motor imagery perspective shapes corticospinal excitability with effector-specific effects.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- GABAergic and glutamatergic mechanisms of cortical excitability shape motor resonance during action observation as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Is there a link between motor learning and mirror neuron system: TMS study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor resonance (MoR) refers to the automatic activation of motor circuits during action observation, reflecting an internal simulation of the observed movement. This phenomenon is thought to arise from the activity of mirror neuron regions, which modulate primary motor cortex (M1) excitability via cortico-cortical pathways. MoR, which is believed to be involved in the mechanism underlying action understanding and motor learning, has been widely studied using visual stimuli and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, the optimal form of movement presentation and TMS timing remains unclear. This study compared the effects of static photographs and videos on the MoR activation and explored the ideal timing for TMS. Participants observed abduction movements of the index finger (controlled by the first dorsal interosseous muscle, FDI) and the little finger (controlled by the abductor digiti minimi muscle, ADM) presented as photographs or videos. The task included three conditions: Photo (static images), Video (full movement videos), and Postvideo (post-movement period). TMS was applied over the primary motor cortex at 0, 320, or 640 ms from movement onset (Photo, Video) and at the same intervals from movement offset (Postvideo). Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from FDI and ADM. The Postvideo condition yielded the strongest MEP modulations, with inhibition in the non-matching muscle and excitation in the muscle corresponding to the observed movement. In contrast, Photo and Video conditions showed time-dependent reductions in cortical excitability, especially in non-matching muscles. These findings suggest that applying TMS after movement observation provides a more accurate approach to studying MoR and highlights the role of motor surround inhibition in motor control.
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.