Trial reportPloS one2016
Assessment of Homonymous Recurrent Inhibition during Voluntary Contraction by Conditioning Nerve Stimulation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Probabilistic inference of homonymous and heteronymous recurrent inhibition in human muscles from large-scale motor neuron recordings.Science advances · 2026Article
- A motor physiology recurrent topic: simplify assumptions to gain extra insight.The Journal of physiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In humans, the amount of spinal homonymous recurrent inhibition during voluntary contraction is usually assessed by using a peripheral nerve stimulation paradigm. This method consists of conditioning the maximal M-wave (SM stimulus) with prior reflex stimulation (S1), with 10 ms inter-stimulus interval (ISI). The decrease observed between unconditioned (S1 only) and conditioned (S1+SM) reflex size is then attributed to recurrent inhibition. However, during a voluntary contraction, a superimposed SM stimulation leads to a maximal M-wave followed by a voluntary (V) wave at similar latency than the H-reflex. This wave can therefore interfere with the conditioned H-reflex when two different stimulation intensities are used (S1 and SM), leading to misinterpretation of the data. The aim of the present study was to assess if conditioning V-wave response instead of H-reflex, by applying SM for both stimuli (test and conditioning), can be used as an index of recurrent inhibition. Conditioned and unconditioned responses of soleus and medial gastrocnemius muscles were recorded in twelve subjects at 25% and at 50% of maximal voluntary contraction at the usual ISI of 10 ms and an optimal inter-stimulus of 15 ms determined upon M- and V-wave latencies. Conditioned H-reflex (obtained with S1+SM paradigm) was significantly lower than the unconditioned by ~30% on average, meaning that the amount of inhibition was 70%. This amount of recurrent inhibition was significantly lower at higher force level with both methods. Regardless of the level of force or the conditioning ISI, results obtained with V-wave conditioning (SM+SM) were similar at both force levels, linearly correlated and proportional to those obtained with H conditioning. Then, V-wave conditioning appears to be a reliable index of homonymous recurrent inhibition during voluntary contraction.
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.