ArticleExperimental brain research2025
Anodal tDCS over the supplementary motor area increases motor overflow during imagined aiming movement.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neural networks subserving motor imagery and action observation overlap with those involved in motor execution. The precise roles of specific cortical areas in these processes are not fully understood. One cortical area implicated in motor imagery is the supplementary motor area (SMA). To test the role of SMA in motor imagery, participants without any known neurological disorders (N = 23) completed three versions of a reciprocal manual aiming task (imagined, observed, and executed movements) before and after transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was applied to the SMA. Anodal, cathodal, and sham (inactive) stimulation protocols were compared within participants. Although the speed-accuracy trade-off observed in the aiming task was not affected by tDCS, the amount of incidental movement during imagery (motor overflow) increased following anodal stimulation. Additionally, imagined movement time was associated less strongly with an implicit measure of motor imagery (hand laterality judgement) following anodal tDCS compared to the sham condition. No effects of tDCS were found for action observation or movement execution. These results suggest that anodal stimulation applied over SMA may subtly disrupt processes underlying motor imagery, either through unintended inhibitory effects or via excitatory effects on adjacent areas of the motor cortex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41240105What 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.