ReviewThe Journal of physiology2026
Muscle tendon vibration revisited: Why tonic vibration reflex and kinaesthetic illusions matter.
Review in The Journal of 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.
- Cortical neuromodulation by vibration-induced illusion of movement is observed in older individuals, but not in individuals with acute stroke: a cross-sectional fNIRS study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle-tendon vibration (MTV) has long been employed in both experimental and clinical settings, and its interest as a neurorehabilitation tool continues to grow. Yet, two primary physiological responses elicited by MTV, the tonic vibration reflex (TVR) and the kinaesthetic illusion (KI), remain inconsistently described across studies. This raises a fundamental limitation: how can vibration-induced adaptations be interpreted when the underlying reflexive or perceptual contributions are unclear? In this topical review, we examine the key mechanisms driving these responses and clarify the conditions that shape their expression. We outline how sensory, attentional and motor contexts can transform the same vibratory-induced afferent into strikingly different physiological and behavioural effects. We also address how the variability in these responses - including the antagonist vibratory responses - may contribute to heterogeneous findings and blur the distinction between responders and non-responders to MTV. We conclude that reflexive or perceptual expression should ideally be systematically monitored, or at minimum that experimental conditions be explicitly reported, as their emergence reflects a configuration in which proprioceptive drive and sensorimotor integration are strongly engaged. By reframing TVR, KI and antagonist vibratory responses as informative physiological markers rather than confounds, this review provides a conceptual and methodological framework to improve the design, interpretation and reproducibility of future studies. This perspective may also support the refinement of MTV as a cost-effective and non-invasive neuromodulatory approach for health and performance applications.
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.