Cited by 572Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

State-dependency in brain stimulation studies of perception and cognition

Silvanto, Juha, Muggleton, Neil, Walsh, Vincent·2008·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

We address the importance of understanding initial states of neuronal populations and of state-dependent responses in cognitive neuroscience experiments with special emphasis on brain stimulation studies of perception and cognition. The approach we present is based on evidence that behavioural and perceptual effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are determined by initial neural activation state; by systematically manipulating neural activation states before application of TMS, one can selectively target specific, even spatially overlapping neural populations within the affected region. This approach is potentially of great benefit to cognitive neuroscience and remediation programmes as it combines high spatial and functional resolution with the ability to assess causality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.004

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 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?

  • The neural state at the time of stimulation or baseline cortical excitation-inhibition levels may influence stimulation effects, with those with suboptimal basal neural states likely to benefit more than those who already have an optimal activation pattern.

    “It has been suggested that the neural state at the time of stimulation (Silvanto et al., 2008) or baseline cortical excitation-inhibition levels may influence stimulation effects (Krause et al., 2013), with those with suboptimal basal neural states likely to benefit more than those who already have an optimal activation pattern.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silvanto, J., Muggleton, N., & Walsh, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Silvanto, Juha
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
447-454
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148739270
Cited by
572
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 29
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH R01 NS33975, R01NS033975)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
state dependence, transcranial magnetic stimulation, perception, cognition, causal inference, neuronal populations, cognitive remediation
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Arousal, Attention, Behavior, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cats, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Color Perception, Dominance, Cerebral, Electroencephalography, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Membrane Potentials, Neural Inhibition, Synaptic Transmission, Neurons, Perception, Phosphenes, Saccades, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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