@article{discovery10086245,
         journal = {Brain Stimulation},
           title = {SICI during changing brain states: Differences in methodology can lead to different conclusions},
            year = {2019},
           month = {November},
            note = {This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, and provide a link to the Creative Commons license. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.},
        abstract = {Background: Short-latency intracortical inhibition (SICI) is extensively used to probe GABAergic inhibitory mechanisms in M1. Task-related changes in SICI are presumed to reflect changes in the central
excitability of GABAergic pathways. Usually, the level of SICI is evaluated using a single intensity of
conditioning stimulus so that inhibition can be compared in different brain states.
Objective: Here, we show that this approach may sometimes be inadequate since distinct conclusions
can be drawn if a different CS intensity is used.
Methods: We measured SICI using a range of CS intensities at rest and during a warned simple reaction
time task.
Conclusions: Our results show that SICI changes that occurred during the task could be either larger or
smaller than at rest depending on the intensity of the CS. These findings indicate that careful interpretation of results are needed when a single intensity of CS is used to measure task-related physiological
changes.},
          author = {Ib{\'a}{\~n}ez, J and Spampinato, DA and Paraneetharan, V and Rothwell, JC},
             url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.11.002},
        keywords = {Transcranial magnetic stimulation, Short intra-cortical inhibition, Movement preparation, Preparatory inhibitio}
}