ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2025
Differences in Hebbian stimulation effects between biceps and triceps brachii in humans.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Distal-Proximal Gradient of Hebbian Plasticity in the Human Arm.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Effects of fatigue on motor unit characteristics in isometric elbow contractions across age groups.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
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
Animal and human studies indicate that monosynaptic corticospinal connections are more prevalent in biceps than triceps brachii motoneurons. Based on this evidence, we hypothesized that Hebbian stimulation, which targets corticospinal-motoneuronal connections, would enhance corticospinal excitability more in the biceps than the triceps brachii. To test this hypothesis, we assessed motor-evoked potential (MEP) size using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at resting motor threshold (MEP-RMT) and maximum stimulator output (MEP-100%) immediately and up to 30 min poststimulation. During Hebbian stimulation, 180 paired pulses were delivered, with corticospinal volleys evoked by TMS arriving at corticospinal-motoneuronal synapses 1-2 ms before antidromic potentials from brachial plexus electrical stimulation. Central and peripheral conduction times were similar between muscles. We found that both MEP-RMT and MEP-100% increase in the biceps and triceps immediately and up to 30 min poststimulation. The increase in MEP-RMT was greater in the biceps compared with the triceps, whereas MEP-100% changes did not differ between muscles. Since the maximum MEP size was larger in the biceps than in the triceps, we conducted a control experiment testing responses at an intermediate size between MEP-RMT and MEP-100% (MEP-Control), ensuring similar baseline sizes between muscles. Notably, Hebbian stimulation continued to produce a greater increase in MEP-Control in the biceps than in the triceps. These findings suggest that Hebbian plasticity enhances corticospinal excitability more in the elbow flexor than extensor muscles, emphasizing the need to consider muscle-specific innervation patterns when future studies assess the therapeutic effect of this technique in individuals with motor impairment.
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.