ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation at submaximal intensity combined with motor imagery increases corticospinal excitability.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The effect of combining motor imagery and electrical stimulation on improving performance in a force tracking task.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
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
purposeThere is sparse evidence in the literature that the combination of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and motor imagery (MI) can increase corticospinal excitability more that the application of one or the other modality alone. However, the NMES intensity usually employed was below or at motor threshold, not allowing a proper activation of the whole neuromuscular system. This questions the effect of combined MI + NMES with higher intensities, closer to those used in clinical settings. The purpose here was to assess corticospinal excitability during either MI, NMES or a combination of both at different evoked forces.
methodsSeventeen healthy participants were enrolled in one session consisting of 6 conditions targeting flexor carpi radialis muscle (FCR): rest, MI, NMES at 5% and 20% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and MI and NMES performed simultaneously (MI + NMES). During each condition, corticospinal excitability was assessed by evoking MEP of FCR by using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Maximal M-wave (Mmax) was measured by using the stimulation of the median nerve.
resultsMEPs during MI were greater as compared to rest (P = 0.005). MEPs during MI were significantly lower than during MI + NMES at 5% (P = 0.02) and 20% (P = 0.001). Then, MEPs during NMES 5% was significantly lower than during MI + NMES 20% (P < 0.005).
conclusionThe present study showed that MI + NMES increased corticospinal excitability more than MI alone. However, corticospinal excitability was not higher as the intensity increase during MI + NMES. Therefore, MI + NMES targeting FCR may not significantly increase the corticospinal excitability between different low-submaximal contractions intensities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39356322What 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.