ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Factors influencing corticomuscular coherence for axial and lower limb musculature in a healthy population: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Corticomuscular coherence (CMC) quantifies the frequency-specific coupling between cortical and muscular activity and is increasingly used to probe motor-control mechanisms. However, the factors that consistently influence CMC in axial and lower-limb muscles remain unclear. Objective: The objective of this study is to map and critically describe experimental factors and methodological choices that have been studied and their potential influence on CMC of axial and lower limb muscles measured in healthy humans. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, and Web of Science were searched from the date of inception to March 5th, 2024. Eligible studies that (i) computed CMC, (ii) recorded cortical activity with EEG or MEG, (iii) analyzed trunk or lower limb EMG, and (iv) compared CMC across experimental conditions or participant groups were included. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted demographic, neurophysiological, task, and signal-processing variables, and grouped studies by the factor examined; third reviewer resolved discrepancies. Results were synthesized descriptively. Results: Four factors showed the most consistent influence on CMC: (1) Age: younger adults exhibit higher CMC than older adults (2) Muscle-specificity: the tibialis anterior (TA) displays stronger CMC than other axial or lower-limb muscles; (3) Contraction type: isotonic and eccentric/quasi-isotonic contractions elicit greater CMC than isometric contractions; (4) Athletic status: non-athletes demonstrate higher CMC than trained individuals. The effects of fatigue, contraction intensity, posture, or walking tasks were inconsistent. Methodologically, most studies employed EEG (single Cz channel) and rectified EMG; MEG, source localization, and longitudinal approaches were seldom used. Discussion: Current evidence indicates that participant characteristics (age, athletic status) and task parameters (muscle tested, contraction type) can impact CMC, but heterogeneity in study design and analysis hampers direct comparison and causal inference. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs, standardized protocols, and advanced source localization techniques to clarify the mechanisms governing CMC in axial and lower-limb musculature.
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.