MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415751284 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaf430

Lesion location changes the association between brain excitability and the performance of a short-term visuomotor adaptation task post-stroke

2025· article· en· W4415751284 on OpenAlexafffund
Bernat de las Heras, Lynden Rodrigues, Jacopo Cristini, Kevin Moncion, Numa Dancause, Alexander Thiel, Jodi D. Edwards, Janice J. Eng, Ada Tang, Marc Roig

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of OttawaJewish Rehabilitation HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationFacilitationLesionMotor learningNeurophysiologyMotor cortexMotor systemMotor skillAssociation (psychology)Electromyography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The capacity to reacquire motor skills lost after a stroke is crucial to promote upper-limb motor recovery, but the impact of lesion location on motor skill acquisition and the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms remain uncertain. Cortico-spinal excitability, measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation, provides information about the functional integrity of the cortico-spinal tract, a structure essential for upper-limb motor function and recovery post-stroke. Cortico-spinal excitability is a biomarker that has been used to predict upper-limb motor recovery and guide interventions post-stroke. We investigated associations between different cortico-spinal excitability measures of facilitation and inhibition and the capacity to improve the performance of a short-term visuomotor adaptation task that required accurate force modulation with the most affected hand in 103 individuals with either cortical (n = 34) or subcortical (n = 69) lesions. Cortico-spinal excitability measures included resting motor threshold, resting and active excitability derived from the amplitude of motor evoked potentials, cortical silent period, as well as intracortical facilitation and short intracortical inhibition. Both lesion groups showed similar rates of motor skill performance but individuals with subcortical lesions exhibited more impairment in the most affected hand and lower excitability in the ipsilesional hemisphere inferred from a reduced amplitude of motor evoked potentials elicited during an active muscle contraction. Exploratory analyses revealed that upper-limb impairments and reductions in active and resting excitability in the ipsilesional hemisphere were exacerbated in individuals with subcortical lesions affecting the cortico-spinal tract. In individuals with cortical lesions, better motor skill performance was associated with lower motor thresholds (β = −0.25, 95% CI [−0.47, −0.03]; P = 0.024) and higher intracortical inhibition (β = −3.93, 95% CI [−6.89, −0.98]; P = 0.011) in the ipsilesional hemisphere. In contrast, in individuals with subcortical lesions motor skill performance was associated with smaller motor evoked potentials (β = −4.46, 95% CI [−8.54, −0.38]; P = 0.033), less intracortical inhibition (β = 3.45, 95% CI [0.34,6.56]; P = 0.030) and higher facilitation (β = 1.34, 95% CI [0.15,2.54]; P = 0.028) in the ipsilesional hemisphere. Associations with intracortical inhibition and facilitation in the subcortical group were driven primarily by observations from individuals with lesions affecting the cortico-spinal tract. Importantly, no associations were found in the contralesional hemisphere. Reinforcing the existence of lesion-specific neurophysiological reorganization patterns, individuals with cortical and subcortical lesions show divergent associations between cortico-spinal excitability and the capacity to improve the performance of a short-term visuomotor adaptation task. The use of cortico-spinal excitability as a biomarker to guide motor recovery interventions such as non-invasive brain stimulation or to predict upper-limb recovery post-stroke should consider lesion location.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207