Re-evaluating transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS): No inhibitory effects on motor cortex across hemispheres

IF 2.3 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES

Clinical Neurophysiology Practice Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-04 DOI:10.1016/j.cnp.2026.02.008

Sabrina Lorenz , Linda Bartusch , Cornelia Heusler , Stefan Götz , Thomas Kammer

{"title":"Re-evaluating transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS): No inhibitory effects on motor cortex across hemispheres","authors":"Sabrina Lorenz , Linda Bartusch , Cornelia Heusler , Stefan Götz , Thomas Kammer","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2026.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To investigate whether transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS) exerts inhibitory effects on the human motor cortex and whether these effects differ between dominant and non-dominant hemispheres.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants underwent tSMS (20 min) and sham stimulation, targeting either the left (dominant, n = 19) or right (non-dominant, n = 19) motor cortex in a between-subject design. Corticospinal excitability was assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), using single-pulse motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and paired-pulse paradigms (short-interval intracortical inhibition SICI, intracortical facilitation ICF). Neuronavigation ensured stable hotspot localization.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No significant differences in MEP amplitudes were observed between tSMS and sham stimulation. Paired-pulse measures confirmed robust inhibition and facilitation, with higher reliability for SICI. However, neither SICI nor ICF showed modulation by tSMS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>tSMS modulated excitability in neither the dominant nor the non– dominant hemisphere. The results suggest that previously reported effects may reflect methodological limitations, particularly absence of neuronavigation or low trial numbers.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>This study provides the first direct hemispheric comparison of tSMS using neuronavigation and robust stimulation protocols, questioning the robustness of earlier findings and highlighting methodological standards for future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"11 ","pages":"Pages 163-171"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467981X2600017X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To investigate whether transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS) exerts inhibitory effects on the human motor cortex and whether these effects differ between dominant and non-dominant hemispheres.

Methods

Participants underwent tSMS (20 min) and sham stimulation, targeting either the left (dominant, n = 19) or right (non-dominant, n = 19) motor cortex in a between-subject design. Corticospinal excitability was assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), using single-pulse motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and paired-pulse paradigms (short-interval intracortical inhibition SICI, intracortical facilitation ICF). Neuronavigation ensured stable hotspot localization.

Results

No significant differences in MEP amplitudes were observed between tSMS and sham stimulation. Paired-pulse measures confirmed robust inhibition and facilitation, with higher reliability for SICI. However, neither SICI nor ICF showed modulation by tSMS.

Conclusions

tSMS modulated excitability in neither the dominant nor the non– dominant hemisphere. The results suggest that previously reported effects may reflect methodological limitations, particularly absence of neuronavigation or low trial numbers.

Significance

This study provides the first direct hemispheric comparison of tSMS using neuronavigation and robust stimulation protocols, questioning the robustness of earlier findings and highlighting methodological standards for future research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

重新评估经颅静电磁刺激（tSMS）：无抑制作用的运动皮层横跨半球

目的探讨经颅静电磁刺激（tSMS）是否对人体运动皮层产生抑制作用，以及这种作用在优势半球和非优势半球之间是否存在差异。方法在受试者间设计中，参与者接受了颅磁刺激（tms）（20分钟）和假刺激，分别针对左侧（优势区，n = 19）或右侧（非优势区，n = 19）运动皮质。采用经颅磁刺激（TMS），利用单脉冲运动诱发电位（MEPs）和成对脉冲模式（短间隔皮质内抑制SICI、皮质内促进ICF）评估皮质脊髓兴奋性。神经导航确保稳定的热点定位。结果经颅刺激与假刺激在MEP振幅上无显著差异。配对脉冲测量证实了强有力的抑制和促进作用，对SICI具有更高的可靠性。然而，SICI和ICF均未被tSMS调制。结论sms对优势半球和非优势半球的兴奋性均无调节作用。结果表明，先前报道的效果可能反映了方法上的局限性，特别是缺乏神经导航或试验数量少。这项研究提供了第一个使用神经导航和稳健刺激方案的颅磁刺激的直接半球比较，质疑了早期研究结果的稳健性，并强调了未来研究的方法标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Neurophysiology Practice NEUROSCIENCES-

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

71 days

期刊介绍： Clinical Neurophysiology Practice (CNP) is a new Open Access journal that focuses on clinical practice issues in clinical neurophysiology including relevant new research, case reports or clinical series, normal values and didactic reviews. It is an official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology and complements Clinical Neurophysiology which focuses on innovative research in the specialty. It has a role in supporting established clinical practice, and an educational role for trainees, technicians and practitioners.