## 4 Discussion  
The primary aim of this study was to examine the temporal effectiveness of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) on lower-limb motor skill performance in individuals with chronic stroke. Contrary to our hypothesis, rPMS did not produce significant improvements in motor skill performance at any of the post-stimulation time points (immediate, 30 min, or 60 min). These findings contrast with previous studies that reported benefits of rPMS on motor outcomes such as reduced spasticity, improved range of motion, and increased muscle strength [10; 14; 15].  
For example, two studies on upper-limb function showed that a single rPMS session enhanced finger extension speed, improved movement efficiency, and reduced spasticity [6; 10]. Similarly, one study observed improvements in ankle range of motion and dorsiflexor strength following rPMS applied to the lower limb. While those studies focused primarily on isolated motor responses, the present study investigated performance on a visuomotor tracking task, a higher-order behavior that integrates motor, sensory, and cognitive components [21; 25].  
Although our results did not reach statistical significance, descriptive data revealed minor variations in spatiotemporal error (NRMSE) across time points. In the rPMS condition, a slight increase in error was noted at Post 0 and Post 60, with a modest decrease at Post 30. In the sham condition, error appeared to increase at Post 30 and Post 60, following a small decrease at Post 0. Similarly, spatial error (SE) demonstrated minor inconsistencies across time points. In the rPMS condition, error slightly decreased at Post 0 and Post 30, followed by a small increase at Post 60. The sham condition showed a minimal decrease in error at Post 0, returning to baseline levels by Post 30, and Post 60. While these trends were not statistically or clinically significant, they may reflect minor variations that were insufficient in magnitude or consistency to produce measurable behavioral effects.  
Although previous studies have reported that rPMS can modulate cortical excitability, the current study did not include neurophysiological measures to directly assess such mechanisms. Given the null results, any observed patterns should be interpreted with  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline
**Time Point** & **Condition** & **NRMSE** & **SE** \\ \hline Pre & rPMS & 0.175 (0.07) & 0.0054 (0.008) \\ \hline  & Sham & 0.188 (0.08) & 0.0074 (0.008) \\ \hline Post 0 & rPMS & 0.176 (0.07) & 0.0053 (0.007) \\ \hline  & Sham & 0.184 (0.08) & 0.0067 (0.006) \\ \hline Post 30 & rPMS & 0.173 (0.07) & 0.0050 (0.006) \\ \hline  & Sham & 0.198 (0.08) & 0.0074 (0.007) \\ \hline Post 60 & rPMS & 0.178 (0.07) & 0.0054 (0.007) \\ \hline  & Sham & 0.189 (0.09) & 0.0074 (0.007) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Motor skill performance parameters (means \(\pm\) SD). NRMSE = normalized root mean square error; SE = spatial error.  
cution and viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than indicative of physiological effect. While these minor variations may hint at a differential responsiveness to rPMS, the absence of statistically significant findings likely reflects methodological and population-level factors that constrained the sensitivity of our measures or the responsiveness of our sample.