ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
Reticulospinal and corticospinal responses in long-term strength-trained and untrained adults.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Corticospinal effects and motor performance changes following resistance training in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Six weeks of isometric resistance training led to evidence of corticospinal but not reticulospinal adaptation in previously untrained adult males.Experimental brain research · 2026Trial
- Effect of physical activity on paired-pulse suppression in the somatosensory cortex after tibial nerve stimulation.Experimental brain research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStudies investigating neural adaptation to strength training have yet to determine the loci of previously observed improvements in motor pathway function. While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies have typically focused on the corticospinal tract, recent evidence from primates suggests that the subcortical reticulospinal tract may be the primary candidate for adaptation.
methodsUsing a cross-sectional comparison, long-term strength-trained athletes (n = 15, 11M/4F, 32 ± 6 y) and untrained adults (n = 18, 11M/7F, 32 ± 4 y) underwent a series of neurophysiological tests designed to target corticospinal and reticulospinal functioning based on biceps brachii muscle responses. The StartReact test was used to determine reaction time, rate of torque development, and muscle activity in response to visual (V), visual-auditory (VA, 80 dB), and visual-startle (VS, 120 dB) cues. Reaction times were used to calculate reticulospinal gain ([V-VS]/[V-VA]). Neuro-navigated monophasic TMS to the motor cortex was given during low-force level isometric voluntary contractions (10% of maximum) with both posterior-anterior (100-180% active motor threshold) and anterior-posterior currents (120% active motor threshold). Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from stimuli given at 120% active motor threshold were compared to startle cue-conditioned responses and anterior-posterior current responses.
resultsUntrained adults benefitted more from StartReact (reticulospinal gain, p = 0.003), whereas strength-trained athletes showed greater MEP size at higher stimulation intensities (180% active motor threshold, p = 0.048, 140-180% area-under-the-curve, p = 0.020) and shorter silent period (180% active motor threshold, p = 0.035).
conclusionsEvidence provided here suggests greater cortico-reticulospinal excitability/functioning in long-term strength-trained athletes.
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.