ArticlePhysiological reports2025
Spinal excitability following sensory electrical stimulation of the upper limb.
Article in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spinal excitability following sensory electrical stimulation of the upper limb.Physiological reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine if sensory electrical stimulation (SES), below motor threshold, would reduce spinal excitability via reciprocal inhibition (RI) and determine if any changes were sex-related. Eighteen healthy participants (11 males and 7 females) participated in a pre-post comparison study. The Hoffmann (H-) reflex was elicited to assess the spinal excitability of Flexor Carpi Radialis (FCR) and the influence of RI from Extensor Carpi Radialis Longus (ECRL) on FCR using a paired conditioning pulse paradigm. A 15-min bout of SES (4 pulse bursts at 100 Hz) was applied to ECRL, and the H-reflexes were measured at 0- and 20-min post SES. A linear mixed model regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of stimulus order, conditioning, sex, and time on the FCR H-reflex. All participants experienced RI from the conditioning pulses, with females having significantly greater suppression than males (mean difference; MD = 0.026). For males, SES produced a depression in FCR excitability (MD = 0.023 at time 0; MD = 0.015 at 20 min post-SES) with no changes in RI. SES had no effect on FCR excitability or RI in females. The potential for SES to produce changes in antagonist excitability was sex-related, which may have important rehabilitation considerations.
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.