Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38379832›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2024

Contrasting MEG effects of anodal and cathodal high-definition TDCS on sensorimotor activity during voluntary finger movements.

Jed A Meltzer, Gayatri Sivaratnam, Tiffany Deschamps, Maryam Zadeh, Catherine Li, Faranak Farzan, Alex Francois-Nienaber

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroimaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jed A MeltzerRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Gayatri SivaratnamRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Tiffany DeschampsRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Maryam ZadehRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Catherine LiRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Faranak FarzanSchool of Mechatronic Systems Engineering, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Alex Francois-NienaberRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Baycrest Hospital · CASimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Protocols for noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are generally categorized as "excitatory" or "inhibitory" based on their ability to produce short-term modulation of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in peripheral muscles, when applied to motor cortex. Anodal and cathodal stimulation are widely considered excitatory and inhibitory, respectively, on this basis. However, it is poorly understood whether such polarity-dependent changes apply for neural signals generated during task performance, at rest, or in response to sensory stimulation. Methods: To characterize such changes, we measured spontaneous and movement-related neural activity with magnetoencephalography (MEG) before and after high-definition transcranial direct-current stimulation (HD-TDCS) of the left motor cortex (M1), while participants performed simple finger movements with the left and right hands. Results: Anodal HD-TDCS (excitatory) decreased the movement-related cortical fields (MRCF) localized to left M1 during contralateral right finger movements while cathodal HD-TDCS (inhibitory), increased them. In contrast, oscillatory signatures of voluntary motor output were not differentially affected by the two stimulation protocols, and tended to decrease in magnitude over the course of the experiment regardless. Spontaneous resting state oscillations were not affected either. Discussion: MRCFs are thought to reflect reafferent proprioceptive input to motor cortex following movements. Thus, these results suggest that processing of incoming sensory information may be affected by TDCS in a polarity-dependent manner that is opposite that seen for MEPs-increases in cortical excitability as defined by MEPs may correspond to reduced responses to afferent input, and vice-versa.

Indexed as

beta oscillationsgamma oscillationsmagnetoencephalography (MEG)MCRFmotor cortexpolarityTDCS

Identifiers

PMID38379832
PMCPMC10875011
OpenAlexW4391536528

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.