ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Test-retest reliability of cortico-spinal measurements in the rectus femoris at different contraction levels.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is there a threshold for use-dependent plasticity? A study of repeated motor skill training in the human lower limbs.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Exploratory EEG-TMS Study Reveals Altered Behavioral Function in Individuals Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Cortical and spinal responses to short-term strength training and detraining in young and older adults in rectus femoris muscle.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Acute hypoalgesic, neurophysiological and perceptual responses to low-load blood flow restriction exercise and high-load resistance exercise.Experimental physiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and, very recently, lumbar stimulation (LS) have been used to measure cortico-spinal excitability from various interventions using maximal or submaximal contractions in the lower limbs. However, reliability studies have overlooked a wide range of contraction intensities for MEPs, and no reliability data is available for LEPs. This study investigated the reliability of motor evoked potentials and lumbar evoked potentials at different stimulation intensities and contraction levels in m.rectus femoris. Twenty-two participants performed non-fatiguing isometric knee extensions at 20 and 60% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). LS induced a lumbar-evoked potential (LEP) of 25 and 50% resting maximal compound action potential (M-max). TMS stimulator output was adjusted to 120, 140, and 160% of active motor threshold (aMT). In each contraction, a single MEP or LEP was delivered. Ten contractions were performed at each stimulator intensity and contraction level in random order. Moderate-to-good reliability was found when LEP was normalized to M-max/Root Mean Square in all conditions (ICC:0.74-0.85). Excellent reliability was found when MEP was normalized to Mmax for all conditions (ICC > 0.90) at 60% of MVC. Good reliability was found for the rest of the TMS conditions. Moderate-to-good reliability was found for silent period (SP) elicited by LS (ICC: 0.71-0.83). Good-to-excellent reliability was found for SP elicited by TMS (ICC > 0.82). MEPs and LEPs elicited in m.rectus femoris appear to be reliable to assess changes at different segments of the cortico-spinal tract during different contraction levels and stimulator output intensities. Furthermore, the TMS- and LS- elicited SP was a reliable tool considered to reflect inhibitory processes at spinal and cortical levels.
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.