↓ Skip to main content

Different Effects of Implicit and Explicit Motor Sequence Learning on Latency of Motor Evoked Potential Evoked by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Primary Motor Cortex

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Different Effects of Implicit and Explicit Motor Sequence Learning on Latency of Motor Evoked Potential Evoked by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Primary Motor Cortex
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masato Hirano, Shinji Kubota, Yoshiki Koizume, Shinya Tanaka, Kozo Funase

Abstract

Motor training induces plastic changes in the primary motor cortex (M1). However, it is unclear whether and how the latency of motor-evoked potentials (MEP) and MEP amplitude are affected by implicit and/or explicit motor learning. Here, we investigated the changes in M1 excitability and MEP latency induced by implicit and explicit motor learning. The subjects performed a serial reaction time task (SRTT) with their five fingers. In this task, visual cues were lit up sequentially along with a predetermined order. Through training, the subjects learned the order of sequence implicitly and explicitly. Before and after the SRTT, we recorded MEP at 25 stimulation points around the hot spot for the flexor pollicis brevis (FPB) muscle. Although no changes in MEP amplitude were observed in either session, we found increases in MEP latency and changes in histogram of MEP latency after implicit learning. Our results suggest that reorganization across the motor cortices occurs during the acquisition of implicit knowledge. In contrast, acquisition of explicit knowledge does not appear to induce the reorganization based on the measures we recorded. The fact that the above mentioned increases in MEP latency occurred without any alterations in MEP amplitude suggests that learning has different effects on different physiological signals. In conclusion, our results propose that analyzing a combination of some indices of M1 excitability, such as MEP amplitude and MEP latency, is encouraged in order to understand plasticity across motor cortices.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Professor 6 9%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 17 25%
Psychology 6 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,200,333
of 23,653,937 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,971
of 7,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,168
of 424,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#75
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,653,937 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.