ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Interactions between arm and leg neuronal circuits following paired cervical and lumbosacral transspinal stimulation in healthy humans.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07204184 (Cervical and Lumbosacral Transspinal Stimulation to Reconnect the Injured Human Spinal Cord), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Cervical and Lumbosacral Transspinal Stimulation to Reconnect the Injured Human Spinal Cord
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical and thoracolumbar transspinal stimulation at 0.3 Hz and 30 Hz facilitates neuronal excitability in healthy humans: a randomized cross-over study.Experimental brain research · 2025Trial
- Transspinal direct current stimulation as targeted therapy to increase motor neuron output and restore inhibition in human spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
Abstract
Transspinal (or transcutaneous spinal cord) stimulation is a promising noninvasive method that may strengthen the intrinsic spinal neural connectivity in neurological disorders. In this study we assessed the effects of cervical transspinal stimulation on the amplitude of leg transspinal evoked potentials (TEPs), and the effects of lumbosacral transspinal stimulation on the amplitude of arm TEPs. Control TEPs were recorded following transspinal stimulation with one cathode electrode placed either on Cervical 3 (21.3 ± 1.7 mA) or Thoracic 10 (23.6 ± 16.5 mA) vertebrae levels. Associated anodes were placed bilaterally on clavicles or iliac crests. Cervical transspinal conditioning stimulation produced short latency inhibition of TEPs recorded from left soleus (ranging from - 6.11 to -3.87% of control TEP at C-T intervals of -50, -25, -20, -15, -10, 15 ms), right semitendinosus (ranging from - 11.1 to -4.55% of control TEP at C-T intervals of -20, -15, 15 ms), and right vastus lateralis (ranging from - 13.3 to -8.44% of control TEP at C-T intervals of -20 and - 15 ms) (p < 0.05). Lumbosacral transspinal conditioning stimulation produced no significant effects on arm TEPs. We conclude that in the resting state, cervical transspinal stimulation affects the net motor output of leg motoneurons under the experimental conditions used in this study. Further investigations are warranted to determine whether this protocol may reactivate local spinal circuitry after stroke or spinal cord injury and may have a significant effect in synchronization of upper and lower limb muscle synergies during rhythmic activities like locomotion or cycling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39034329What 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.