Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 4, 2026

Standardized Induction and Assessment of Long-term Potentiation-like Cortical Plasticity Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: November 7, 2025
Relationship Between Non-invasive Brain Stimulation-induced Plasticity and Capacity for Motor Learning
Virginia López-Alonso1, Binith Cheeran2, Miguel Fernández-del-Olmo1
1Faculty of Sciences of Sport and Physical Education, Department of Physical Education, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) shows limited association with motor learning (ML) capacity. However, some NIBS protocols may enhance reaction times in specific motor learning tasks.
Area of Science:
- Neuroscience
- Motor Control
- Rehabilitation
Background:
- Cortical plasticity is crucial for motor learning (ML).
- Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modulates motor cortex plasticity to enhance ML.
- The link between NIBS-induced plasticity and ML capacity remains unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the relationship between NIBS-induced changes in motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and ML capacity.
- To determine if different NIBS protocols elicit varying effects on ML.
Main Methods:
- 56 participants underwent three NIBS protocols: paired associative stimulation (PAS), anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (AtDCS), and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS).
- Participants completed three lab-based ML tasks: serial reaction time (SRTT), visuomotor adaptation (VAT), and sequential visual isometric pinch task (SVIPT).
- Response patterns to NIBS were clustered, and ML variables were compared; regression and correlation analyses explored the relationship between MEP changes and ML capacity.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in ML variables were found between NIBS response clusters.
- Higher response to NIBS potentially predicted poorer performance in specific blocks of the VAT.
- "Responders" to AtDCS and iTBS demonstrated faster reaction times than "non-responders," though physiological significance is uncertain.
Conclusions:
- MEP changes in the motor cortex (M1) induced by PAS, AtDCS, and iTBS show minimal association with ML capacity across SRTT, VAT, and SVIPT.
- NIBS-induced cortical excitability changes in M1 may correlate with reaction time and skill retention in certain ML tasks.
More Related Videos
07:47Non-Invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation Montages for Modulation of Human Motor Function
Published on: February 4, 2016
13:56The Use of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a Tool for the Measurement of Bi-hemispheric Transcranial Electric Stimulation Effects on Primary Motor Cortex Metabolism
Published on: November 19, 2014
Related Concept Videos
Neuroplasticity
Long-term Potentiation
Hebbian LTP
LTP can occur when...
Long-term Potentiation