ArticleScientific reports2025
Supplementary motor area enhanced hemodynamic responses to loading after inhibitory cTBS.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-extent movements (LEMs) are vital for daily activities, and their recovery remains a challenge in neurorehabilitation due to inevitable loading on muscles. Since inhibitory cTBS may facilitate recovery but also disrupt task control, we ask whether a previously identified linear relationship between load and cortical activation would retain, after cTBS over the contralateral supplementary motor area (SMA). It will set a benchmark for choosing resistance during brain stimulation. Hemodynamic activities of SMA and M1 during LEMs were monitored by functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) in this study. Twelve healthy participants received 40s of cTBS over SMA, before and after which the participants were instructed to complete LEMs with varying loads (0, 3, and 15 pounds) repetitively. When lifting 0-pound and 3-pound weights, the β of the left SMA and M1 increased significantly after cTBS (p < 0.05). Also, the random intercepts of individual subjects increased significantly in the left SMA, left M1, and right SMA, but the slopes were not significantly affected by cTBS. Data also showed a significant positive correlation between the intercept of left M1, right SMA&M1 areas and age (all p < 0.05). Despite cTBS-induced inhibition, the supplementary motor area (SMA) exhibited enhanced fNIRS responses to increased loads, and the positive correlation between load inertia and motor-cortical activation remained unaltered.
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.