ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Corticospinal excitability is higher during synchronous vs asynchronous arm cycling.
Article 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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is the first study to assess corticospinal excitability during synchronous and asynchronous arm cycling modes. Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii was assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were evoked during the mid-flexion position of arm cycling across two modes; (1) synchronous (Sync) and (2) asynchronous (Async) cycling at three different cadences; 30, 60 and 90rpm. The power output was kept constant at 30watts throughout the cycling trials. In the biceps brachii muscle, TMS-induced motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were significantly higher during the synchronous mode compared to the asynchronous arm cycling mode (F(1,10) = 12.18, p < 0.05). However, MEP amplitudes were not significantly different between both modes in the triceps brachii muscle at the mid elbow flexion phase of arm cycling. There was also no significant difference in the corticospinal excitability to both muscles between the two modes as the cycling cadence increased from 30 to 90rpm (i.e. no interaction effect between mode and cadence). In line with our previous studies, we observed that MEP amplitudes increased as the cycling cadence increased from 30 to 90rpm in both the biceps brachii (F(2,20) = 12.92, p < 0.01) and triceps brachii (F(2,20) = 6.314, p < 0.05). We suggest that the observed higher corticospinal excitability observed during Sync mode in the biceps brachii might be due to increased interhemispheric facilitation (cortical spread) and/or reduced interhemispheric inhibition at the cortical level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41619033What 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.