ArticleeNeuro
Paired Associative Stimulation Fails to Induce Plasticity in Freely Behaving Intact Rats.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical development and guiding theory of transcranial magnetic stimulation: a literature review.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Electrophysiological evidence of Hebbian plasticity in awake adult rats.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Targeted Modulation of Human Brain Interregional Effective Connectivity With Spike-Timing Dependent Plasticity.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2023Article
- Assessment of Corticospinal Excitability in Awake Rodents Using EMG-Controlled Intracortical Stimulation.Bio-protocol · 2021Article
- Posteroanterior Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: Interactions with Cortical and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Neurostimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paired associative stimulation (PAS) has been explored in humans as a noninvasive tool to drive plasticity and promote recovery after neurologic insult. A more thorough understanding of PAS-induced plasticity is needed to fully harness it as a clinical tool. Here, we tested the efficacy of PAS with multiple interstimulus intervals in an awake rat model to study the principles of associative plasticity. Using chronically implanted electrodes in motor cortex and forelimb, we explored PAS parameters to effectively drive plasticity. We assessed changes in corticomotor excitability using a closed-loop, EMG-controlled cortical stimulation paradigm. We tested 11 PAS intervals, chosen to force the coincidence of neuronal activity in the motor cortex and spinal cord of rats with timings relevant to the principles of Hebbian spike timing-dependent plasticity. However, despite a relatively large number of stimulus pairings (300), none of the tested intervals reliably changed corticospinal excitability relative to control conditions. Our results question PAS effectiveness under these conditions.
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.