ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2025
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Inter-Pulse Interval Does Not Influence Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii During Submaximal Isometric Elbow Flexion.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research on resting muscles has shown that inter-pulse interval (IPI) duration influences transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) responses, which can introduce serious confounding variables into investigations if not accounted for. However, it is far less clear how IPI influences TMS responses in active muscles. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between IPI and corticospinal excitability during submaximal isometric elbow flexion. Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii was measured using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via TMS. Stimulation intensity was set to 120% of the biceps brachii's active motor threshold while participants produced 10% of their biceps' maximal muscle activity. TMS was delivered as separate trains of five stimulations, with experimental conditions differing between IPIs of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 14 s. Results demonstrated that IPI had no influence on MEP amplitudes for either the biceps or triceps. However, when MEP amplitudes were expressed as a unitless ratio to pre-stimulus muscle activity, a main effect of time was found for the biceps; MEP amplitudes progressively decreased with successive stimulations (MEP 1:32.8 ± 5.9; MEP 5:27.7 ± 4.3, p < 0.05). These results suggest that IPI is unlikely to represent a confounding variable in TMS studies utilizing active contractions. However, studies looking to compare the amplitudes of single MEPs over time should be aware of the possibility that amplitudes may decrease with continuous stimulation. Future research should seek to examine even longer IPIs and explore the influence of higher stimulation intensities.
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.