Neural Noise

TMS-based neurofeedback training of mental finger individuation and sensorimotor neuroplasticity

3 min read

  • TMS-based neurofeedback training of mental finger individuation induces neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor system (Journal of Neuroscience).1
  • The paradigm directly informs closed-loop neuromodulation and motor BCI/neuroprosthetic training.1 1

Gardner updates

  • TMS-based neurofeedback training of mental finger individuation induces neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor system and informs closed-loop neuromodulation and motor BCI training (Journal of Neuroscience). 1

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

  • The primary source is Mihelj et al., “TMS-Based Neurofeedback Training of Mental Finger Individuation Induces Neuroplastic Changes in the Sensorimotor System,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 45, issue 35, article e2189242025 (early online 2025-07-24, published 2025-08-27; doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2189-24.2025), a 16-page study from groups including ETH Zurich and Queen’s University Belfast.2 3
  • The design compared a neurofeedback group (n = 16) that completed four TMS-NF training sessions against a control group (n = 16) that did no training; both groups underwent identical pre- and post-training TMS and fMRI sessions.2 3
  • During training, participants performed kinaesthetic motor imagery of individual right-hand finger movements while a round-coil TMS pulse elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs) simultaneously in three muscles - abductor pollicis brevis (APB), first dorsal interosseous (FDI), and abductor digiti minimi (ADM) - and saw MEPs normalized to rest as three feedback bars.2 3
  • A trial counted as successful when the target-finger bar exceeded baseline and both non-target bars; a “star” was awarded when the target-finger normalized MEP was >1.5 while a non-target finger’s was <1, and task difficulty rose across sessions by shifting from blocked to interleaved target order.2 3
  • Paired-pulse TMS probed short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI, GABA-A-ergic, 2 ms interstimulus interval) and intracortical facilitation (ICF, glutamatergic, 12 ms interval) with the conditioning stimulus at 70% resting motor threshold; after training, SICI was selectively reduced (disinhibited) for the mentally activated finger.2 3
  • fMRI on a 3 T Siemens Magnetom Prisma (64-channel coil, 2.2 mm isotropic EPI, TR 846 ms) with representational similarity analysis showed motor-imagery finger representations in the primary sensorimotor (SM1) hand cortex became more distinct after TMS-NF, with secondary analyses in premotor (PMv, PMd) and supplementary motor areas.2 3
  • The authors frame TMS-NF explicitly as a brain-computer interface (BCI) neurofeedback method, showing that improved BCI control reshapes the sensorimotor representations activated by motor imagery, a direct link to closed-loop neuromodulation and motor neurorehabilitation.2
  • A precursor study (Mihelj et al., NeuroImage 2021, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118463) first showed TMS-NF, but not uninformative-feedback motor imagery, let participants selectively upregulate one finger’s corticomotor excitability while downregulating others, accompanied by beta-band EEG desynchronization, proposing utility for stroke and spinal cord injury rehabilitation.4
  • Clinically the work targets recovery of fine motor function; effects were demonstrated in healthy participants, so translation to patient populations remains to be tested and no patient outcomes were reported.2

Footnotes

  1. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiYEFVX3lxTE5QdE82dTlRUlNQbE5HVTlaV2l2VU5CWGg3NVRkN1lyMlk2UmxNSDVTT2JPdC01M1MyZFoySHQxZjIyUHNDMFpfSVhIejdWd2pBZVZCdTFnelQtdkhKUXgzQQ?oc=5 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2189-24.2025 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12392065/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118463 ↩

Graph View