2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No modulatory effects by transcranial static magnetic field stimulation of human motor and somatosensory cortex

Abstract: We provide a detailed analysis of possible confounding factors and differences to previous studies on tSMS. After all, our results could not confirm the static magnetic field effect.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
26
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
2
26
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite a larger sample, the use of neuronavigation, and an optimal number of pulses to reliably assess MEP amplitude, we found no influence of a 30-min application of tSMS over M1 on CSE for nearly an hour after its removal. These null results corroborate those of Kufner et al (2017) [4], who also failed to show any effects of tSMS on CSE (10e15 min application; n ¼ 15), and suggest that tSMS, like other NIBS techniques [5], is subject to considerable variability.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Despite a larger sample, the use of neuronavigation, and an optimal number of pulses to reliably assess MEP amplitude, we found no influence of a 30-min application of tSMS over M1 on CSE for nearly an hour after its removal. These null results corroborate those of Kufner et al (2017) [4], who also failed to show any effects of tSMS on CSE (10e15 min application; n ¼ 15), and suggest that tSMS, like other NIBS techniques [5], is subject to considerable variability.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We are pleased that our recent attempt to replicate the methods and results from Dileone et al [1] has garnered attention from the authors of the original findings. Briefly, despite having a~99% probability of replicating the results from Dileone et al [1], our results revealed that transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS) yielded neither significant (all uncorrected p values > 0.101) nor meaningful (effect size values below medium-sized benchmark values; all Cohen's dz < 0.408) depression of corticospinal excitability (CSE) [2], a finding also reported by another group using a smaller sample [3]. Upon re-analysis of our data set, the authors reached the conclusion that tSMS rather significantly depressed CSE, hence disputing our conclusion.…”
Section: Dear Editorcontrasting
confidence: 65%
“…There are different doctrines and school of thoughts regarding the efficacy of SMF stimulation in clinical applications that has emerged in the recent years 66 68 . Studies by Olivierio et al .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 67 reported that transcranial static magnetic field stimulation (tSMS) could modulate the excitability of the motor cortex, but these results could not be replicated in a recent study by Kufner et al . 68 . In addition to SMF stimulation, there have been reports of electric field or oscillating field stimulation enhancing the endogenous differentiation of OPCs and promoting re-myelination post spinal cord injury 69 , 70 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%