ArticleNeurophotonics2026
Investigating repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced interhemispheric changes in stroke: a transcranial magnetic stimulation and fNIRS study.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on the mechanisms and clinical applications of neuromodulation techniques for intervening in interhemispheric imbalance after stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy and mechanistic insights of non-invasive neuromodulation and motor rehabilitation on functional reorganization of the supplementary motor area in subacute stroke: a narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: Interhemispheric imbalance after stroke impedes motor recovery. Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shows therapeutic potential, the neural mechanisms underlying its effects-particularly on cortical excitability and interhemispheric interaction-remain unclear. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for optimizing personalized neuromodulation strategies in stroke rehabilitation. Aim: To explore how low-frequency rTMS facilitates motor recovery post-stroke, especially in regulating interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), functional connectivity, and cortical excitability, we used a multimodal approach that included paired-pulse TMS, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), and motor outcomes. Approach: A total of 27 patients with stroke were randomized to receive 2 weeks of either real ( Results: Compared with the sham group, rTMS significantly modulated IHI, as evidenced by a reduction in inhibitory drive from the stimulated contralesional M1 to ipsilesional M1 (mean difference = 15.57%, Conclusions: We showed that low-frequency rTMS promotes motor recovery after stroke by rebalancing cortical excitability and reducing maladaptive connectivity patterns. The integration of TMS and fNIRS provides converging evidence for rTMS-induced cortical plasticity and highlights the potential of these tools for guiding personalized neuromodulation strategies in stroke rehabilitation.
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.