OBJECTIVE:Motor learning is the core cognitive function in neurorehabilitation and in various other skill-training activities (e.g. sport, music). Therefore, there is an increasing interest in the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) methods for its enhancement. However, although usually assumed, a potential placebo effect of TMS methods on motor learning has never been systematically investigated. METHODS: Improvement of performance on the Purdue Pegboard Task over three test-blocks (T0, T1, and T2), separated by >20 min, was used to evaluate motor learning. In Experiment-1, two groups of 10 participants each were compared: one group immediately before T1 received a sham intermittent theta burst stimulation procedure (P-iTBS group), while another did not have any intervention at all (control - CON group). In Experiment-2, a third group of participants (six subjects) who received sham high-frequency repetitive TMS procedure before T1 (P-rTMS group) was compared with P-iTBS group. RESULTS: All three groups showed significant learning over time, but without any difference between them, either in Experiment-1 between P-iTBS and CON, or in Experiment-2 between P-rTMS and P-iTBS. CONCLUSION: The results suggest lack of any placebo effect of TMS on motor learning. SIGNIFICANCE: The results may help in designing further TMS-motor learning studies and in interpreting their results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Motor learning is the core cognitive function in neurorehabilitation and in various other skill-training activities (e.g. sport, music). Therefore, there is an increasing interest in the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) methods for its enhancement. However, although usually assumed, a potential placebo effect of TMS methods on motor learning has never been systematically investigated. METHODS: Improvement of performance on the Purdue Pegboard Task over three test-blocks (T0, T1, and T2), separated by >20 min, was used to evaluate motor learning. In Experiment-1, two groups of 10 participants each were compared: one group immediately before T1 received a sham intermittent theta burst stimulation procedure (P-iTBS group), while another did not have any intervention at all (control - CON group). In Experiment-2, a third group of participants (six subjects) who received sham high-frequency repetitive TMS procedure before T1 (P-rTMS group) was compared with P-iTBS group. RESULTS: All three groups showed significant learning over time, but without any difference between them, either in Experiment-1 between P-iTBS and CON, or in Experiment-2 between P-rTMS and P-iTBS. CONCLUSION: The results suggest lack of any placebo effect of TMS on motor learning. SIGNIFICANCE: The results may help in designing further TMS-motor learning studies and in interpreting their results.