Trial reportThe journal of spinal cord medicine2014
Failure of spinal paired associative stimulation to induce neuroplasticity in the human corticospinal tract.
Trial report in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Paired Associative Stimulation on Cortical Plasticity in Agonist-Antagonist Muscle Representations.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Assessment of Corticospinal Excitability in Awake Rodents Using EMG-Controlled Intracortical Stimulation.Bio-protocol · 2021Article
- Neurostimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Effects of Remote Ischemic Conditioning on Hand Engagement in individuals with Spinal cord Injury (RICHES): protocol for a pilot crossover study.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Letter to the Editor.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT/
objectivePaired associative stimulation (PAS) involves paired-stimulation pulses at both the head (via transcranial magnetic stimulation) and the periphery (via peripheral nerve stimulation). The purpose of PAS, when applied to the spinal cord, is to induce neuroplasticity and upregulate the corticospinal tract leading to effector muscles. While limited research has suggested that it is possible to produce neuroplasticity through spinal PAS, all such studies have provided stimulation at a fixed frequency of 0.1 or 0.2 Hz. DESIGN/
interventionsThe present study therefore sought to compare the effectiveness of a typical 0.1 Hz paradigm with a 1 Hz paradigm, and a paradigm which provided stimulation in 5 Hz "bursts". Two inter-stimulus intervals were tested: one which was expected to produce synchronous pre- and post-synaptic activation at the spinal synapse, and one which was not. The peripheral stimulation was applied at the wrist, to induce thumb adduction.
resultsNone of the paradigms were able to successfully induce neuroplasticity in a consistent manner.
conclusionThe high between-subject variability in this study suggests that responses to the spinal PAS treatment may have been highly individual. This serves to highlight a potential limitation of the spinal PAS treatment, which is that its effectiveness may not be universal, but rather dependent on each specific recipient. This may be a challenge faced by spinal PAS should it continue to be tested as a potential novel therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.