Trial reportNeural plasticity2026
Effects of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targets for Enhancing Motor Learning: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Neural plasticity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06262425 (Comparison of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Protocols for Motor Learning in Healthy People. A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Protocols for Motor Learning in Healthy People. A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe primary motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices play a key role in motor learning (ML), but the physiological mechanisms underlying learning in these regions remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied over S1 or M1 to enhance use-dependent and reinforcement-like ML in healthy participants.
methodsA single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 60 healthy participants, randomly assigned to receive rTMS over M1, S1, or sham. Participants underwent a 10-day motor training protocol involving an arbitrary visuomotor association (AVMA) task to promote reinforcement learning and the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT) to promote use-dependent learning, always after rTMS. The primary outcome measure was the number of pegs placed in the PPT, and the secondary outcome was the response accuracy during a forced response (FR) version of the AVMA. Assessments were conducted at baseline, mid-intervention (t1), postintervention (t2), and at 1-month follow-up (t3).
resultsFor use-dependent learning on the PPT, S1 stimulation outperformed sham at t1 (right hand), t2 (both hands), and t3 (both hands). M1 stimulation showed no significant differences versus sham. For reinforcement learning on the forced response-AVMA (FR-AVMA), no active group differed from sham; however, S1 and M1 showed opposite numerical tendencies at t3 (S1 trending better, M1 worse), yielding a significant S1-M1 contrast.
conclusionThese findings suggest that rTMS over S1 may enhance use-dependent ML, while the divergent S1 and M1 tendencies in reinforcement-like learning warrant further, adequately powered investigation, with implications for future research in both healthy and clinical populations.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06262425.
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.