ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Mapping motor point response areas in the calf during transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 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
backgroundNeuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) delivered transcutaneously activates skeletal muscle; its effectiveness is determined by stimulation parameters and by how skin-applied currents recruit underlying neuromuscular structures. Motor points (MPs) are commonly used to guide electrode placement; however, they are typically treated as discrete skin locations, and the spatial extent and reproducibility of surrounding responsive regions remain poorly characterised. Moreover, the minimum intensity required to elicit visible motor responses, and its variability over time, are seldom reported. The calf represents an appropriate model to examine these issues, as posterior calf stimulation produces visible ankle plantar flexion (PF). This study aimed to map stimulation response patterns in the skin associated with an identified MP in the posterior calf, assess their reproducibility, and determine the stimulation intensity required to elicit PF.
methodsThirty healthy adults underwent three weekly NMES sessions on the same calf. In each session, the same MP was stimulated at the lowest PF-eliciting intensity. A circular grid (5 cm radius) classified the surrounding skin as eliciting PF with muscle contraction (Zone 1), isolated muscle contraction (Zone 2), or no response (Zone 3). Areas were compared across sessions. Temporal stability was assessed using non-parametric tests and bootstrapping. Logistic regression examined associations between participant characteristics and response area size.
resultsA concentric pattern of diminishing responses from the MP was observed. Median Zone 1 (MP response area) was 8.1 cm
conclusionMP activation during transcutaneous NMES is better described as a finite and reproducible cutaneous response area rather than a single skin location. PF is confined to a small, stable core region, while surrounding areas elicit weaker or absent motor responses. These findings have implications for how MPs are conceptualised and assessed in NMES protocols.
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.