Back

Amplitude-Modulated Kilohertz Stimulation Targeting Beta-Band Activity Disrupts Motor Learning

Reber, P.; Merrick, C. M.; Avraham, G.; Killebrew, I.; Thayer-Pham, K.; Ahmad-Ali, H.; Peterchev, A. V.; Ganguly, K.; Luu, C.; Sheltraw, D.; Labruna, L.; Ivry, R. B.

2026-07-17 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.07.11.737109 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Sensorimotor learning is associated with the modulation of neural rhythms in the primary motor cortex (M1). Beta-band activity ("beta"; 15-30 Hz) is suppressed during learning, while delta oscillations (1-4 Hz) become increasingly correlated with movement kinematics as skill improves. These observations have been complemented by experimental manipulations designed to perturb oscillatory activity with externally applied electric fields (E-fields). In non-human primates, invasive beta stimulation has been shown to disrupt motor learning whereas delta stimulation enhanced motor recovery in a stroke model. Causal evidence in humans remains limited, partly because established non-invasive methods cannot achieve continuous, narrowband E-fields at sufficient amplitude in the brain. To address this gap, we employed kilohertz transcranial magnetic perturbation (kTMP), a non-invasive magnetic induction technique that delivers continuous narrowband kilohertz E-fields which can be amplitude-modulated (AM) to target cortical rhythms. We applied AM-kTMP to test the functional relevance of beta and delta activity in human motor learning. In a double-blind mixed design, 40 participants performed a force-control task while receiving AM-kTMP at E-field amplitudes of 8 V/m in M1. We targeted either beta or delta, each paired with a sham condition. AM-kTMP influenced motor performance in a frequency-dependent manner: Beta-kTMP suppressed performance gains relative to both delta-kTMP and sham, whereas delta-kTMP showed no effect. These results suggest that increased beta activity in human M1 can interfere with motor learning. More broadly, kTMP offers a novel approach to probe frequency-specific cortical dynamics.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.