The role of interneuron networks in driving human motor cortical plasticity.

By Masashi Hamada, Nagako Murase, Alkomiet Hasan, M. Balaratnam, John C. Rothwell. Cerebral Cortex, 2013

741 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a4c82ae963cbc632f16a13f6381a0556dbab9fcb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Leonardo G. Cohen
2. Alvaro Pascual-Leone
3. Michael A. Nitsche
4. John C. Rothwell
5. Friedhelm Christoph Hummel
6. Walter Paulus
7. C. J. Stagg
8. Hartwig Roman Siebner

In Neurology

1. Alvaro Pascual-Leone
2. Leonardo G. Cohen
3. Michael A. Nitsche
4. John C. Rothwell
5. Walter Paulus
6. Friedhelm Christoph Hummel
7. Ulf Ziemann
8. Hartwig Roman Siebner

Citations in the corpus

• Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). (2014, positive): “On the other hand, it has been recently demonstrated (Hamada et al., 2013) that the concept of ‘‘excitatory’’ effect of iTBS vs.”
• Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. (2014, positive): “The number of responders (showing a significant response in the predicted direction) is slightly lower to that reported by Hamada et al. (2013) [16] and Muller-Dahlhaus et al. (2008) [15], but this could be because grouping in these papers was based on the grand average of normalized MEP amplitude…”
• Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014–2018) (2019, positive): “As LF-rTMS, cTBS protocol is considered as ‘‘inhibitory”, although the cortical plasticity changes induced by this type of rTMS protocol (like the others) have shown a great interindividual variability (Hamada et al., 2013; Hordacre et al., 2017).”
• Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. (2014, methodology): “[10], MEP onset latencies to LM TMS pulses had a shorter latency than those to AP stimulation (Table 1).”
• Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee (2015, background): “These also include the application of repetitive pairs of TMS pulses and the combination of high and low frequency stimulation in a ‘priming stimulation’ paradigm (Hamada et al., 2013).”