Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Determining the cortical, corticospinal, and reticulospinal responses to metronome-paced and self-paced strength training.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Pooled it
- Intra- and Inter-Session Reliability of Average- and Trial-Level Motor Evoked Potential Amplitudes.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Is there a threshold for use-dependent plasticity? A study of repeated motor skill training in the human lower limbs.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Age-related differences in corticospinal and reticulospinal adaptations to short-term strength training.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Intracortical inhibition, corticospinal excitability and voluntary activation in people with and without patellofemoral pain.Experimental physiology · 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
purposeThe acute neurophysiological responses to resistance training (RT), particularly in corticospinal and reticulospinal pathways, remain unclear. This study investigated the effects of different RT modalities on these pathways.
methodsThirty-six RT-naive participants (10 males, 2 females per group) were randomly assigned to metronome-paced RT (MP-RT), self-paced RT (SP-RT), or a control group. Cortical, corticospinal, and cortico-reticulospinal responses were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), while reticulospinal tract (RST) excitability was evaluated by examining the effect of startle stimulus on rate of force development (RFD) at baseline, 5 min, and 30 min post-exercise.
resultsMP-RT enhanced corticospinal excitability by 50% at 5 min (p = 0.017) and 72% at 30 min (p < 0.001). MP-RT reduced short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI) by 56% and cSP by 12% at 5 min and ~ 20% at 30 min. SP-RT reduced cSP by 17% at 5 min at 150% active motor threshold (AMT; p < 0.05). At 170% AMT, cSP reductions were observed in both MP-RT (23%) and SP-RT (18.9%; p < 0.001). SP-RT increased ipsilateral to contralateral motor evoked potential amplitude ratio (ICAR) by 48% at 30 min (p < 0.001), and RFD during the initial 50 ms under startling stimuli by 60% at 30 min (p = 0.039).
conclusionMP-RT enhances intracortical/corticospinal excitability and may support rehabilitation from corticospinal injury/impairment, while SP-RT improves cortico-reticular and reticulospinal excitability, making it suitable for athletes or older adults seeking improved gross strength.
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.