ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Effect of motor process-related priming via repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation on embodiment perception during mirror visual feedback: a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- The effects of mirror visual feedback involved network priming on embodiment perception in healthy subjects: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Non-invasive brain stimulation has been combined with mirror visual feedback (MVF) as a priming strategy to enhance therapeutic efficacy. However, a superior combined effect is hindered by the lack of emphasis on MVF-relevant embodiment perception. Objective: This study assessed the priming effect of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) on embodiment perception during MVF. Methods: In the experiment, 15 healthy participants were required to complete tasks using their left hand while keeping their right hand static behind a mirror. They first received excitatory TMS over the left M1 or dlPFC, or sham-TMS in random order during three trial rounds and then performed three subsequent motor tasks and two task-oriented evaluations during MVF in each trial. Latency time (LT), number of embodiment occurrences, embodiment questionnaire (EQ) score, and time required to complete the task-oriented activities were recorded. Results: The results showed that the LT of forearm rotation in the dlPFC-TMS round was shorter than that in the sham-TMS round, although a greater number of occurrences were obtained in both the M1-TMS and dlPFC-TMS rounds compared to the sham-TMS round within the three motor tasks, which suggested that TMS priming facilitated the elicitation of embodiment perception. The EQ results indicated strengthened embodiment perception after TMS priming, especially in the dlPFC-TMS round. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that TMS priming over motor process-related regions, specifically the dlPFC, contributes to eliciting and intensifying embodiment perception during MVF, which benefited from a superior MVF paradigm for improving rehabilitation outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier ChiCTR2400089499 https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=240385.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.