Trial reportExperimental physiology2025
Post-exercise neural plasticity is augmented by adding blood flow restriction during low work rate arm cycling.
Trial report in Experimental physiology, 2025. 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.
- Post-exercise neural plasticity is augmented by adding blood flow restriction during low work rate arm cycling.Experimental physiology · 2025Trial
- Translational perspectives on neurophysiological responses and mechanisms in blood flow restriction exercise.Experimental physiology · 2026Review
- Multiscale Mechanisms of Exercise-Induced Neuroplasticity: From Molecular Pathways to Network Dynamics and Behavioral Adaptation.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- A hierarchical integration model of effort perception: peripheral, central, cognitive, temporal, and applied mechanisms revealed through blood flow restriction.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with low work rate exercise can enhance muscular and cardiovascular fitness. However, whether neural mechanisms mediate these enhancements remains unknown. This study examined changes in corticospinal excitability and motor cortical inhibition following arm cycle ergometry with and without BFR. Twelve healthy males (24 ± 4 years) completed four, randomized 15-min arm cycling conditions: high work rate (HW: 60% maximal power output), low work rate (LW: 30% maximal power output), low work rate with BFR (LW-BFR) and BFR without exercise (BFR-only). For BFR conditions, cuffs were applied around the upper arm and inflated to 70% of arterial occlusion pressure continuously during exercise. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to left primary motor cortex (M1) to elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEP) in the right biceps brachii during a low-level isometric contraction. MEP amplitude and cortical silent period (cSP) duration were measured before and 1, 10 and 15 min post-exercise. MEP amplitude increased significantly from baseline to Post-10 and Post-15 for both the HW (both z < -7.07, both P < 0.001) and LW-BFR conditions (both z < -5.56, both P < 0.001). For the LW condition without BFR, MEP amplitude increased significantly from baseline to Post-10 (z = -3.53, P = 0.003) but not Post-15 (z = -1.85, P = 0.388). The current findings show that HW arm cycling and LW-BFR led to longer-lasting increases in corticospinal excitability than LW arm cycling alone. Future research should examine whether the increased corticospinal excitability is associated with the improvements in muscle strength observed with BFR exercise. A mechanistic understanding of BFR exercise improvement could guide BFR interventions in clinical populations.
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.