Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25360103›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2014

The modulatory effect of electrical stimulation on the excitability of the corticospinal tract varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed.

Kei Saito, Kenichi Sugawara, Shota Miyaguchi, Takuya Matsumoto, Hikari Kirimoto, Hiroyuki Tamaki, Hideaki Onishi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kei SaitoDepartment of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan ; Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.
Kenichi SugawaraFaculty of Rehabilitation, Kanagawa University of Human Services Kanagawa ,Japan.
Shota MiyaguchiInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.
Takuya MatsumotoInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.
Hikari KirimotoInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.
Hiroyuki TamakiDepartment of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan ; Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.
Hideaki OnishiDepartment of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan ; Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.
Niigata University of Health and Welfare · JPKanagawa University of Human Services · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Afferent input caused by electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve increases corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions, indicating that proprioceptive sensory input arriving at the cortex plays a fundamental role in modulating corticospinal excitability. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during a shortening contraction, an isometric contraction, or no contraction of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. In some trials, electrical stimulation of the ulnar nerve was performed at 110% of the sensory threshold or 110% of the motor threshold prior to TMS. Electrical stimulation involved either a train of 50 pulses at 10 Hz or a single pulse. Shortening contraction with the train of electrical stimuli significantly increased MEP amplitudes, and the increase was dependent on the type of stimulation. Isometric contraction with the train of electrical stimuli and electrical stimulation without voluntary contraction did not affect MEP amplitudes. A single pulse of electrical stimulation did not affect MEP amplitudes in any condition. Thus, electrical-stimulation-induced modulation of corticospinal excitability varied according to the type of muscle contraction performed and the type of stimulation. These results show that the type of contraction should be considered when using electrical stimulation for rehabilitation in patients with central nervous system lesions.

Indexed as

corticospinal tractelectrical stimulationexcitabilitytranscranial magnetic stimulationvoluntary contraction

Identifiers

PMID25360103
PMCPMC4199265
OpenAlexW2152198610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.