Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2021
Insights into the combination of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and motor imagery in a training-based approach.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of movement representation techniques on ankle function and performance in persons with or without a lateral ankle sprain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Protocols Targeting Afferent Pathways via Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for the Plantar Flexors: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Elderly may benefit more from motor imagery training in gaining muscle strength than young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- The effect of combining motor imagery and electrical stimulation on improving performance in a force tracking task.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Multidirectional effect of low-intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation on gene expression and phenotype in thigh and calf muscles after one week of disuse.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Article
- Effects of 12 Weeks of Interval Block Resistance Training Versus Circuit Resistance Training on Body Composition, Performance, and Autonomic Recovery in Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Can motor imagery balance the acute fatigue induced by neuromuscular electrical stimulation?European journal of applied physiology · 2023Article
- Electrical stimulation therapy for peripheral nerve injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Inter-task transfer of force gains is facilitated by motor imagery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Influence of motor imagery training on hip abductor muscle strength and bilateral transfer effect.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Effects of motor imagery training on skeletal muscle contractile properties in sports science students.PeerJ · 2022Article
- Does partial activation of the neuromuscular system induce cross-education training effect? Case of a pilot study on motor imagery and neuromuscular electrical stimulation.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraining stimuli that partially activate the neuromuscular system, such as motor imagery (MI) or neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), have been previously shown as efficient tools to induce strength gains. Here the efficacy of MI, NMES or NMES + MI trainings has been compared.
methodsThirty-seven participants were enrolled in a training program of ten sessions in 2 weeks targeting plantar flexor muscles, distributed in four groups: MI, NMES, NMES + MI and control. Each group underwent forty contractions in each session, NMES + MI group doing 20 contractions of each modality. Before and after, the neuromuscular function was tested through the recording of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), but also electrophysiological and mechanical responses associated with electrical nerve stimulation. Muscle architecture was assessed by ultrasonography.
resultsMVC increased by 11.3 ± 3.5% in NMES group, by 13.8 ± 5.6% in MI, while unchanged for NMES + MI and control. During MVC, a significant increase in V-wave without associated changes in superimposed H-reflex has been observed for NMES and MI, suggesting that neural adaptations occurred at supraspinal level. Rest spinal excitability was increased in the MI group while decreased in the NMES group. No change in muscle architecture (pennation angle, fascicle length) has been found in any group but muscular peak twitch and soleus maximal M-wave increased in the NMES group only.
conclusionFinally, MI and NMES seem to be efficient stimuli to improve strength, although both exhibited different and specific neural plasticity. On its side, NMES + MI combination did not provide the expected gains, suggesting that their effects are not simply cumulative, or even are competitive.
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.