The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human corticospinal excitability evaluated with transcranial magnetic stimulation during different reaction time paradigms
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate corticospinal excitability of both hemispheres during the reaction time (RT) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Nine right-handed subjects performed right and left thumb extensions in simple (SRT), choice (CRT) and go/no-go auditory RT paradigms. TMS, inducing motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) simultaneously in the extensor pollicis brevis muscles bilaterally, was applied at different latencies from the tone. For all paradigms, MEP amplitudes on the side of movement increased progressively in the 80-120 ms before EMG onset, while the resting side showed inhibition. The inhibition was significantly more pronounced for right than for left thumb movements. For the left SRT, significant facilitation occurred on the right after EMG onset. Initial bilateral facilitation occurred in SRT trials with slow RT. After no-go tones, bilateral inhibition occurred at a time corresponding to the mean RT to go tones. The timing of the corticospinal rise in excitability on the side of movement was independent of task difficulty and RT. This suggests that corticospinal activation is, to some extent, in series and not in parallel with stimulus processing and response selection. Corticospinal inhibition on the side not to be moved implies that suppression of movement is an active process. This inhibition is more efficient for right- than for left-side movements in right-handed subjects, possibly because of left hemispheric dominance for movement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900
Individual differences in right and left reaction time.
Annett, M., & Annett, J. (1979) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb01709.x · Cited by 50
Cited by
Phase-specific modulation of cortical motor output during movement observation
Gangitano, M., Mottaghy, F. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2001) · Neuroreport · doi:10.1097/00001756-200105250-00038 · Cited by 446
Intracortical inhibition during volitional inhibition of prepared action
Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2006) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.01334.2005 · Cited by 337
Disruption of state estimation in the human lateral cerebellum
Miall, R. C., Christensen, L. O. D., Cain, O., & Stanley, J. (2007) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050316 · Cited by 338
Selective inhibition of movement
Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2007) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.01284.2006 · Cited by 173
Expectancy Induces Dynamic Modulation of Corticospinal Excitability
van Elswijk, G., Kleine, B. U., Overeem, S., & Stegeman, D. F. (2007) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.121 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Leocani, L., Cohen, L. G., Wassermann, E. M., Ikoma, K., & Hallett, M.
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1161-1173
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2066670312
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human corticospinal excitability evaluated with transcranial magnetic stimulation during different reaction time paradigms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/123.6.1161
- The paper
- Leocani, L., Cohen, L. G., Wassermann, E. M., Ikoma, K., & Hallett, M. (2000). Human corticospinal excitability evaluated with transcranial magnetic stimulation during different reaction time paradigms. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.6.1161
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.