ArticleExperimental brain research2016
Differences in corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii between arm cycling and tonic contraction are not evident at the immediate onset of movement.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Inter-Pulse Interval Does Not Influence Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii During Submaximal Isometric Elbow Flexion.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of Vertical Lifting Distance on Upper-Body Muscle Fatigue.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Short-interval intracortical inhibition to the biceps brachii is present during arm cycling but is not different than a position- and intensity-matched tonic contraction.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Muscle length and joint angle influence spinal but not corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii across forearm postures.Journal of neurophysiology · 2019Article
- Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii is Not Different When Arm Cycling at a Self-Selected or Fixed Cadence.Brain sciences · 2019Article
- Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling.Brain sciences · 2016Article
- Changes in Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii with a Neutral vs. Pronated Handgrip Position Differ between Arm Cycling and Tonic Elbow Flexion.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is the first study to examine changes in corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii during the onset of arm cycling from a resting position to a point when steady-state arm cycling was obtained. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation and cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation, respectively. Evoked responses were recorded from the biceps brachii during elbow flexion (6 o'clock relative to a clock face) for both arm cycling and an intensity-matched tonic contraction at three separate periods: (1) immediately at the onset of motor output and after completion of the (2) 4th revolution and (3) 9th revolution. There was no difference during initiation between tasks for MEP (P = 0.79) or CMEP amplitudes (P = 0.57). However, MEP amplitudes were significantly larger during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction after the completion of the 4th (Cycling 76.48 ± 17.35 % of M max, Tonic 63.45 ± 18.45 % of M max, P < 0.05) and 9th revolutions (Cycling 72.37 ± 15.96 % of M max, Tonic 58.1 ± 24.23 % of M max, P < 0.05). There were no differences between conditions in CMEP amplitudes at the 4th (Cycling 49.6 ± 25.4 % of M max, Tonic 41.6 ± 11.2 % of M max, P = 0.31) or the 9th revolution (Cycling 47.2 ± 17.0 % of M max, Tonic 40.8 ± 13.6 % of M max, P = 0.29). These results demonstrate that corticospinal excitability is not different between arm cycling and a tonic contraction at motor output onset, but supraspinal excitability is enhanced during steady-state arm cycling. This suggests a similarity in the way the corticospinal tract initiates motor outputs in humans, regardless of the differences that present themselves in the later, steady-state stages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27038204What 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.