Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40603947›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Motor resonance and inhibitory mechanisms in action observation as revealed by corticospinal excitability.

Carlos Nieto-Doval, Aynur Ragimova, Gleb Perevoznyuk, Traian Popa, Oleg Shevtsov, Victoria Moiseeva, Matteo Feurra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Carlos Nieto-DovalCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
Aynur RagimovaCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
Gleb PerevoznyukCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
Traian PopaDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Oleg ShevtsovCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
Victoria MoiseevaCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
Matteo FeurraCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. mfeurra@hse.ru.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evoked Potentials, MotorMotor CortexPyramidal TractsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultElectromyographyFemaleFingersHumansMaleMirror NeuronsMovementMuscle, SkeletalPhotic StimulationYoung AdultAction observationMirror neuronsMotor resonanceMotor surround inhibitionPrimary motor cortexTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID40603947
PMCPMC12222457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.