Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31079235›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2019

Repeated cathodal transspinal pulse and direct current stimulation modulate cortical and corticospinal excitability differently in healthy humans.

Lynda M Murray, Maria Knikou

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04807764 (Priming With High-Frequency Trans-spinal Stimulation to Augment Locomotor Benefits in Spinal Cord Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04807764 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Priming With High-Frequency Trans-spinal Stimulation to Augment Locomotor Benefits in Spinal Cord Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorCity University of New YorkRan2021 to 2024Enrolled14ConditionsSpinal Cord Injuries, Paraplegia, Spinal, Tetraplegia/Tetraparesis, Paraplegia, SpasticArmsStanding transspinal stimulation followed by robotic gait training, Lying transspinal stimulation followed by robotic gait training, Standing sham transspinal stimulation followed by robotic gait training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lynda M MurrayKlab4Recovery Research Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Staten Island, 2800 Victory Blvd, 5N-207, New York, NY, 10314, USA.
Maria KnikouKlab4Recovery Research Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Staten Island, 2800 Victory Blvd, 5N-207, New York, NY, 10314, USA. Maria.Knikou@csi.cuny.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6277-236X

Funding

Craig H. Neilsen Foundation 339705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noninvasive transspinal stimulation of the thoracolumbar region, where leg motor circuits reside, produces prominent plasticity of brain and spinal cord circuits. However, reorganization of cortical and corticospinal excitability after multiple sessions (i.e. repeated) remains elusive. In this study, we investigated changes in intracortical inhibition, intracortical facilitation, and corticospinal excitability after 10 sessions of cathodal transcutaneous delivery of pulse or direct current stimulation, termed here transspinal (tsPCS, tsDCS), in resting healthy humans. tsPCS was delivered at sub- and supra-threshold intensities, while intensity for tsDCS ranged from 2.24 to 2.34 mA within a session. Intracortical inhibition and facilitation were assessed based on the tibialis anterior (TA) motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude following subthreshold transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at the conditioning-test (C-T) intervals of 1, 2, 3, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 ms. The TA MEP recruitment input-output curves were also assembled to establish changes in corticospinal excitability. For both transspinal stimulation protocols, the active cathodal electrode was placed over the T10 spinal process. Results indicated that repeated tsPCS did not alter intracortical inhibition or intracortical facilitation but decreased corticospinal excitability for the right M1 and increased corticospinal excitability for the left M1. tsDCS decreased intracortical inhibition, increased intracortical facilitation, did not affect the maximal MEP amplitude but increased the slope of the right TA MEP input-output curve. Neurophysiological changes may be attributed to neural mechanisms involved in learning and memory. These results support that noninvasive transspinal stimulation alters both cortical and corticospinal neural excitability in resting healthy humans.

Indexed as

AdultElectrodesEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexPyramidal TractsSpinal Cord StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung AdultCortical mechanismsCorticospinal excitabilityDirect currentModulationPlasticityPulse currentTransspinal stimulation

Identifiers

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.