ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026
Re-evaluating transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS): No inhibitory effects on motor cortex across hemispheres.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Home-based transcranial static magnetic field stimulation - concept, development, and clinical applications: IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS) exerts inhibitory effects on the human motor cortex and whether these effects differ between dominant and non-dominant hemispheres. Methods: Participants underwent tSMS (20 min) and sham stimulation, targeting either the left (dominant, n = 19) or right (non-dominant, n = 19) motor cortex in a between-subject design. Corticospinal excitability was assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), using single-pulse motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and paired-pulse paradigms (short-interval intracortical inhibition SICI, intracortical facilitation ICF). Neuronavigation ensured stable hotspot localization. Results: No significant differences in MEP amplitudes were observed between tSMS and sham stimulation. Paired-pulse measures confirmed robust inhibition and facilitation, with higher reliability for SICI. However, neither SICI nor ICF showed modulation by tSMS. Conclusions: tSMS modulated excitability in neither the dominant nor the non- dominant hemisphere. The results suggest that previously reported effects may reflect methodological limitations, particularly absence of neuronavigation or low trial numbers. Significance: This study provides the first direct hemispheric comparison of tSMS using neuronavigation and robust stimulation protocols, questioning the robustness of earlier findings and highlighting methodological standards for future research.
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.