Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26371306›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

Targeted, activity-dependent spinal stimulation produces long-lasting motor recovery in chronic cervical spinal cord injury.

Jacob G McPherson, Robert R Miller, Steve I Perlmutter

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05267951 (Closed-loop Spinal Stimulation for Restoration of Upper Extremity Function After Spinal Cord Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05267951 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Closed-loop Spinal Stimulation for Restoration of Upper Extremity Function After Spinal Cord Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WashingtonRan2022 to 2028Enrolled9ConditionsSpinal Cord InjuriesArmsOpen-loop Stimulation, Close-loop Stimulation, Functional Task Practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. An Investigation of Manifold-Based Direct Control for a Brain-to-Body Neural Bypass.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jacob G McPhersonDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
Robert R MillerDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
Steve I PerlmutterDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 perl@uw.edu.
University of Washington · US

Funding

Washington National Primate Research CenterP51OD010425 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Mari Ostendorf · 2012 to 2026
$201.8M
NIH HHS P51 OD010425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Use-dependent movement therapies can lead to partial recovery of motor function after neurological injury. We attempted to improve recovery by developing a neuroprosthetic intervention that enhances movement therapy by directing spike timing-dependent plasticity in spared motor pathways. Using a recurrent neural-computer interface in rats with a cervical contusion of the spinal cord, we synchronized intraspinal microstimulation below the injury with the arrival of functionally related volitional motor commands signaled by muscle activity in the impaired forelimb. Stimulation was delivered during physical retraining of a forelimb behavior and throughout the day for 3 mo. Rats receiving this targeted, activity-dependent spinal stimulation (TADSS) exhibited markedly enhanced recovery compared with animals receiving targeted but open-loop spinal stimulation and rats receiving physical retraining alone. On a forelimb reach and grasp task, TADSS animals recovered 63% of their preinjury ability, more than two times the performance level achieved by the other therapy groups. Therapeutic gains were maintained for 3 additional wk without stimulation. The results suggest that activity-dependent spinal stimulation can induce neural plasticity that improves behavioral recovery after spinal cord injury.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesAnimalsCervical CordElectric StimulationElectromyographyNeuronal PlasticityRatsRecovery of FunctionSpinal Cord Injuriesrecurrent neural–computer interfacerehabilitationspike timing-dependent plasticityspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID26371306
PMCPMC4593107
OpenAlexW2121290855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.