ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2018
Corticospinal Excitability Is Modulated as a Function of Postural Perturbation Predictability.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypoxia and standing balance.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Pooled it
- Relationships between types of balance performance in 3-to-6-year-old preschoolers: a cross-sectional study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Gait instability is a more specific predictor of corticospinal tract function than gait speed in clinically stable multiple sclerosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Developmental trajectories of balance performance in preschoolers: age and gender differences for 3-6 years old Chinese children.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Effect of spinal cord injury on neural encoding of spontaneous postural perturbations in the hindlimb sensorimotor cortex.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
- Sympathetic Response to Postural Perturbation in Stance.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Motor Point Stimulation in Spinal Paired Associative Stimulation can Facilitate Spinal Cord Excitability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- H-reflex modulation preceding changes in soleus EMG activity during balance perturbation.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Presetting of the Corticospinal Excitability in the Tibialis Anterior Muscle in Relation to Prediction of the Magnitude and Direction of Postural Perturbations.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
- Associations Between Types of Balance Performance in Healthy Individuals Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies demonstrated that the corticospinal pathway is one of the key nodes for the feedback control of human standing and that the excitability is flexibly changed according to the current state of posture. However, it has been unclear whether this pathway is also involved in a predictive control of human standing. Here, we investigated whether the corticospinal excitability of the soleus (SOL) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles during standing would be modulated anticipatorily when perturbation was impending. We measured the motor-evoked potential (MEP) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex at six stimulus intensities. Three experimental conditions were set depending on predictabilities about perturbation occurrence and onset: No perturbation, No Cue, and Cue conditions. In the Cue condition, an acoustic signal was given as timing information of perturbation. The slope of the stimulus-response relation curve revealed that the TA-MEP was enhanced when postural perturbation was expected compared to when the perturbation was not expected (No Perturbation vs. No Cue, 0.023 ± 0.004 vs. 0.042 ± 0.007; No Perturbation vs. Cue, 0.023 ± 0.004 vs. 0.050 ± 0.009; Bonferroni correction,
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.