ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation modulates quiet standing in healthy adults: stimulation site and cognitive style matter.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- Effects of spinal cord transcutaneous stimulation priming on single-leg balance control.World journal of methodology · 2026Trial
- Neurosensory Integration and Balance Adaptation: Personalization of Postural Control Through the Prism of Individual Spatial Perception.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Postural control in humans: a study using transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Spinal Regulation of Posture: Effects of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord and Affective Sound Stimulation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study explored the effects of transcutaneous electrical spinal cord stimulation (tES) on postural control. Subjects were divided into field-dependent (FD) and field-independent (FI) groups according to their cognitive style. FD subjects use an exteroceptive afferent stream for spatial orientation, while FI subjects use an interoceptive stream. In darkness, vertical posture is maintained by head-trunk stabilization in FD subjects and by independent movements of body segments in FI subjects. Previously, we showed that tES at the L1-L2 vertebral level decreased postural stability in FD subjects. Now, stimulation was applied at the T11-T12 vertebral level (midline, above the left or right dorsal roots). Quiet standing was assessed using stabilometry in 18 FD and FI participants. Participants stood on a force platform in soundproof chamber with eyes closed during tES. Midline and left tES significantly improved postural stability by up to 28% in FD participants, while posture did not change significantly in FI participants. Pronounced differences between the effects of T11-T12 and L1-L2 stimulation are associated with selective topographical activation of proximal and distal leg muscles during tES of the lumbar enlargement. This study highlights the importance of considering cognitive style in postural control research.
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.