ArticleSpinal cord2020
Exploring the receptor origin of vibration-induced reflexes.
Article in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
A New Method to Determine Onset Point of Mechanical Stimulation Inducing Muscle Spindle-Based Stretch Reflex by Using Intramuscular Electromyography Electrodes
The Reflex Mechanism Underlying The Neuromuscular Effects Of The Whole Body Vibration
Bereitschafts (Readiness) Potential and Reflex Activity During Bone-Loading Exercises
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Load-dependent dissociation between H-reflex amplitude and background EMG activity during oscillatory loading: implications for the bone myoregulation reflex.Experimental brain research · 2026Trial
- Neurophysiological assessment of bone mechanosensitivity using the bone myoregulation reflex.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- The role of the bone myoregulation reflex in impact-loading activities: a new view of feedback control mechanisms.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Exploring neuronal mechanisms of osteosarcopenia in older adults.The Journal of physiology · 2026Review
- Brief skin cooling modulates the reflexes generated by whole-body vibration.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Article
- Whole body vibration activates the tonic vibration reflex during voluntary contraction.Journal of physical therapy science · 2023Article
- High-frequency whole-body vibration activates tonic vibration reflex.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- The reflex mechanism underlying the neuromuscular effects of whole-body vibration: Is it the tonic vibration reflex?Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designAn experimental design.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the latencies of vibration-induced reflexes in individuals with and without spinal cord injury (SCI), and to compare these latencies to identify differences in reflex circuitries.
settingA tertiary rehabilitation center in Istanbul.
methodsSeventeen individuals with chronic SCI (SCI group) and 23 participants without SCI (Control group) were included in this study. Latency of tonic vibration reflex (TVR) and whole-body vibration-induced muscular reflex (WBV-IMR) of the left soleus muscle was tested for estimating the reflex origins. The local tendon vibration was applied at six different vibration frequencies (50, 85, 140, 185, 235, and 265 Hz), each lasting for 15 s with 3-s rest intervals. The WBV was applied at six different vibration frequencies (35, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 45 Hz), each lasting for 15 s with 3-s rest intervals.
resultsMean (SD) TVR latency was 39.7 (5.3) ms in the SCI group and 35.9 (2.7) ms in the Control group with a mean (95% CI) difference of -3.8 (-6.7 to -0.9) ms. Mean (SD) WBV-IMR latency was 45.8 (7.4) ms in the SCI group and 43.3 (3.0) ms in the Control group with a mean (95% CI) difference of -2.5 (-6.5 to 1.4) ms. There were significant differences between TVR latency and WBV-IMR latency in both the groups (mean (95% CI) difference; -6.2 (-9.3 to -3.0) ms, p = 0.0001 for the SCI group and -7.4 (-9.3 to -5.6) ms, p = 0.011 for Control group).
conclusionsThe results suggest that the receptor of origin of TVR and WBV-IMR may be different.
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.