ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026
The frequency-dependent effects of primary hand motor cortex stimulation on volitional finger movement.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. 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
Objective: We conducted a prospective study in human patients undergoing awake craniotomies to examine whether the effects of cortical stimulation in hand primary motor cortex (M1) can be (1) frequency dependent and (2) inhibitory. Methods: In 11 participants undergoing clinically indicated awake craniotomies, we delivered bursts of 1-333 Hz stimulation during a finger-flexion task. Synchronized electrocorticography (ECoG), finger joint kinematics, electromyography (EMG), and video were recorded. Results: Inability to flex the index finger during subthreshold stimulation was noted in 3 participants at frequencies >250 Hz when the electrodes were in locations that induced extension of the forefinger at higher amplitudes. Other than these trials, all stimulation events either induced muscle contractions or had no measurable effect. Conclusion: Data presented here represent the first evidence of (1) movement inhibition of the human hand caused by electrical stimulation of M1, as well as (2) the frequency-dependence of net downstream effects of hand M1 stimulation during task. Our findings support the hypothesis that the mechanism of movement inhibition may be activation of indirect, net-inhibitory mechanisms, as opposed to direct inhibition of the stimulated motor neurons. Significance: There is growing interest in using continuous electrical stimulation of the brain to remap anatomical-functional relationships away from invasive lesions. Achieving this type of neuroplasticity requires a better understanding of the direct and indirect effects of cortical stimulation. Here we demonstrate the frequency-dependent effects of cortical M1 stimulation on volitional finger movement.
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.