ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2025
The effects of stimulation waveform and carrier frequency on tolerance and motor thresholds elicited by transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in stroke.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of electrode configuration and location on motor thresholds, tolerance, and muscle selectivity of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in stroke.Journal of neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Fundamental limitations of kilohertz-frequency carriers in afferent fibre recruitment with transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Webcam-Based Pain Measurement Using Pupillary Diameter.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Postural control in humans: a study using transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Multi-system benefits of non-invasive spinal cord stimulation following cervical spinal cord injury: a case study.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Article
- Multimodal Machine Learning to Personalize Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation.Digital biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: With growing interest in translating transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) into rehabilitation for different neurologic injuries, understanding the effects of various combinations of stimulation parameters becomes essential. Methods: Twenty-one participants post-stroke completed an assessment to determine their resting motor threshold (RMT) (minimum current required to elicit a muscle response) and tolerance levels (uncomfortable current intensity) to 12 stimulation configurations: two square waveforms, biphasic and monophasic, paired with six carrier frequencies (unmodulated: 0, and modulated: 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 kHz). Results: The results demonstrated that increasing carrier frequency increased participants' tolerance level and RMTs. Carrier frequency nor waveform type significantly altered discomfort when tolerance was normalized to the motor threshold, with 57 ± 23 % tolerated across all configurations. However, higher carrier frequencies, particularly biphasic waveforms at frequencies > 5 kHz, required more charge to reach a muscle activation and activated fewer muscles compared to unmodulated waveforms. No significant differences in discomfort relative to RMT were found between monophasic and biphasic waveforms. Conclusions: Higher carrier frequency allows stimulation to be more comfortable at a given intensity, but it also requires more current to reach RMTs. Significance: This study provides an essential feasibility assessment of tSCS configurations in a neurological population.
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.