ArticleJournal of neural engineering2021
Input-output slope curve estimation in neural stimulation based on optimal sampling principles
Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterogeneous Recruitment Curve Responses to Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children With Unilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Article
- Exploring pain-motor dynamics: preliminary insights through exploration of descending inhibition and corticospinal excitability.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Electrophysiological Biomarkers Reflect Target Engagement and Response Using Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026Article
- Temporal interference stimulation over the motor cortex enhances cortical excitability in rats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of dopamine release and uptake parameters across sex, species and striatal subregions.The European journal of neuroscience · 2024Article
- Step-by-step approach: Stereotaxic surgery forMethodsX · 2024Article
- Transcranial magnetic stimulation input-output curve slope differences suggest variation in recruitment across muscle representations in primary motor cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Closed-loop optimal and automatic tuning of pulse amplitude and width in EMG-guided controllable transcranial magnetic stimulation.Biomedical engineering letters · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This paper discusses some of the practical limitations and issues, which exist for the input-output (IO) slope curve estimation (SCE) in neural, brain and spinal, stimulation techniques. The drawbacks of the SCE techniques by using existing uniform sampling and Fisher-information-based optimal IO curve estimation (FO-IOCE) methods are elaborated. A novel IO SCE technique is proposed with a modified sampling strategy and stopping rule which improve the SCE performance compared to these methods. The effectiveness of the proposed IO SCE is tested on 1000 simulation runs in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), with a realistic model of motor evoked potentials. The results show that the proposed IO SCE method successfully satisfies the stopping rule, before reaching the maximum number of TMS pulses in 79.5% of runs, while the estimation based on the uniform sampling technique never converges and satisfies the stopping rule. At the time of successful termination, the proposed IO SCE method decreases the 95th percentile (mean value in the parentheses) of the absolute relative estimation errors (AREs) of the slope curve parameters up to 7.45% (2.2%), with only 18 additional pulses on average compared to that of the FO-IOCE technique. It also decreases the 95th percentile (mean value in the parentheses) of the AREs of the IO slope curve parameters up to 59.33% (16.71%), compared to that of the uniform sampling method. The proposed IO SCE also identifies the peak slope with higher accuracy, with the 95th percentile (mean value in the parentheses) of AREs reduced by up to 9.96% (2.01%) compared to that of the FO-IOCE method, and by up to 46.29% (13.13%) compared to that of the uniform sampling method.
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.