ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Spatial distribution of spinal cord fMRI activity with electrocutaneous stimulation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensory organization at the spinal segment level is commonly inferred from dermatomal maps that assume a fixed correspondence between cutaneous regions and spinal segments. However, based on the complexities of spinal neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, the distribution of sensory signals within the cord may be broader and less segment-specific than dermatomal maps suggest, leaving the segment-level localization of sensory-evoked activity in humans uncertain. Spinal cord functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is currently the only technique capable of noninvasively mapping sensory activity with high spatial resolution in the human spinal cord. However, its application remains technically challenging and is limited by the uncertainty in segmental localization. In this study, we leveraged recent advancements in spinal cord fMRI, including spinal nerve rootlet-based spatial normalization, to investigate how sensory information is represented and distributed within the human spinal cord during electrocutaneous stimulation of the third digit of the right hand (i.e., C7 dermatome). Forty healthy adults were scanned with electrocutaneous stimulation at four individualized intensities across multiple runs to quantify (i) the rostrocaudal distribution of sensory-evoked activity, (ii) intensity-dependent changes in detectability and localization, and (iii) the effect of normalization strategy on segmental localization. Across participants, stimulation produced activation localized in the lower cervical cord (e.g., C6-C8), with the most consistent segmental localization near C7. Stronger stimulation increased detectability and produced more consistent segmental localization across participants. Importantly, normalization that incorporated nerve rootlet landmarks sharpened localization and improved sensitivity relative to conventional intervertebral disc-based alignment. This highlights the value of functionally relevant anatomical landmarks for group inference in the spinal cord. Responses were strongest in the initial run and attenuated with repetition, suggesting habituation or adaptation that can bias multi-run paradigms if unmodeled. Together, our results define practical acquisition and analysis conditions (e.g., stimulation strength, anatomical alignment strategy, and run structure) under which segment-level spinal sensory responses can be detected, thereby supporting more reliable studies of human spinal cord future basic and translational studies, including pain mechanisms, sensory function, and spinal injury.
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.