Trial reportExperimental brain research2018
The ipsilateral corticospinal responses to cross-education are dependent upon the motor-training intervention.
Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can the cross-education of strength attenuate the impact of detraining after a period of strength training? A quasi-randomized trial.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Trial
- Reliability of force production based on the sense of effort at different force levels.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Enhancing prehension strength and dexterity through cross-education effects in the elderly.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effects of Tempo-Controlled Resistance Training on Corticospinal Tract Plasticity in Healthy Controls: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Cross-education: motor unit adaptations mediate the strength increase in non-trained muscles following 8 weeks of unilateral resistance training.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Non-paretic leg movements can facilitate cortical drive to the paretic leg in individuals post stroke with severe motor impairment: Implications for motor priming.The European journal of neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Eccentric Phase in Unilateral Resistance Training Enhances and Preserves the Contralateral Knee Extensors Strength Gains After Detraining in Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- 1894 revisited: Cross-education of skilled muscular control in women and the importance of representation.PloS one · 2022Article
- Motor cortical circuits contribute to crossed facilitation of trunk muscles induced by rhythmic arm movement.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The Bottom-Up Rise Strength Transfer in Elderly After Endurance and Resistance Training: The BURST.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the ipsilateral corticospinal responses of the contralateral limb following different types of unilateral motor-training. Three groups performing unilateral slow-paced strength training (SPST), non-paced strength training (NPST) or visuomotor skill training (VT) were compared to a control group. It was hypothesised that 4 weeks of unilateral SPST and VT, but not NPST, would increase ipsilateral corticospinal excitability (CSE) and reduce short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI), resulting in greater performance gains of the untrained limb. Tracking error of the untrained limb reduced by 29 and 41% following 2 and 4 weeks of VT. Strength of the untrained limb increased by 8 and 16% following 2 and 4 weeks of SPST and by 6 and 13% following NPST. There was no difference in cross-education of strength or tracking error. For the trained limb, SPST and NPST increased strength (28 and 26%), and VT improved by 47 and 58%. SPST and VT increased ipsilateral CSE by 89 and 71% at 2 weeks. Ipsilateral CSE increased 105 and 81% at 4 weeks following SPST and VT. The NPST group and control group showed no changes at 2 and 4 weeks. SPST and VT reduced ipsilateral SICI by 45 and 47% at 2 weeks; at 4 weeks, SPST and VT reduced SICI by 48 and 38%. The ipsilateral corticospinal responses are determined by the type of motor-training. There were no differences in motor performance between SPST, NPST and VT. The data suggests that the corticospinal responses to cross-education are different and determined by the type of motor-training.
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.