Cited by 182Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMotor Control and Adaptation

Modulation of use‐dependent plasticity by d‐amphetamine

Bütefisch, Cathrin M., Davis, Benjamin C., Sawaki, Lumy, Waldvogel, Daniel, Classen, Joseph, Kopylev, Leonid, Cohen, Leonardo G.·2002·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Use‐dependent plasticity, thought to contribute to functional recovery after brain injury, is elicited by motor training. The purpose of this study was to determine if administration of d‐amphetamine facilitates the effects of motor training on use‐dependent plasticity. Healthy human volunteers underwent a training period of voluntary thumb movements under the effects of placebo or d‐amphetamine in different sessions in a randomized double‐blind, counterbalanced design. Previous work in a drug‐naive condition showed that such training causes changes in the direction of thumb movements evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation and in transcranial magnetic stimulation‐evoked electromyographic responses. The endpoint measure of the study was the magnitude of training‐induced changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation‐evoked kinematic and electromyographic responses in the d‐amphetamine and in the placebo conditions. Motor training resulted in increased magnitude, faster development and longer lasting duration of use‐dependent plasticity under d‐amphetamine compared to the placebo session. These results document a facilitatory effect of d‐amphetamine on use‐dependent plasticity, a possible mechanism mediating the beneficial effect of this drug on functional recovery after cortical lesions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.10056

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Use-dependent plasticity rests on neuromodulatory transmitter function of the sort that may encode precision.

    “Interestingly, this use-dependent plasticity rests on neuromodulatory transmitter function (Bütefisch et al. 2002) of the sort that may encode precision (Friston 2008).”

    From Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation (2010) · cites this paper as Bütefisch et al. 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bütefisch, C. M., Davis, B. C., Sawaki, L., Waldvogel, D., Classen, J., Kopylev, L., & Cohen, L. G.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Rostock (DE)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Leonardo G.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12-03
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
59-68
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2085716451
Cited by
182
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • OAM-NIH
  • Humboldt Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
use-dependent plasticity, d-amphetamine, motor training, functional recovery after brain injury, cortical lesions, transcranial magnetic stimulation, electromyographic response, kinematic response, thumb movement
MeSH terms
Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Brain Injuries, Conditioning, Psychological, Dextroamphetamine, Double-Blind Method, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Magnetics, Male, Movement, Neuronal Plasticity, Thumb, Evoked Potentials, Motor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review