ArticleThe Journal of physiology2026
A method of compensating for the excitability of spinal motoneurones when estimating the magnitude of potentials evoked in skeletal muscles.
Article 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.
- When is a muscle at rest? The problem of background activity in brain stimulation.Experimental physiology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recognition of the mediating influence of spinal motoneurone excitability on the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) generated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), it is customary to reject trials/study participants if the level of electromyographic (EMG) activity recorded before the delivery of TMS exceeds some threshold. The thresholds employed in practice vary considerably (2.5-100 µV) and appear arbitrary. It is now known that a change in root mean squared (r.m.s.) EMG from 1 to 5 µV is associated with a 20% increase in the probability that the MEP amplitude will exceed the 50 µV criterion for resting motor threshold. Furthermore, trial-to-trial fluctuations in r.m.s. EMG over a range not extending beyond 2 µV are associated with systematic variations in the amplitude of MEPs. These outcomes suggest that most EMG rejection thresholds fail in their principal purpose - which is to obviate the influence of spinal motoneurone excitability on the amplitude of evoked potentials. A new method (implemented using both quantile and least squares linear regression techniques) is presented, that can be used to compensate for this influence. Using a very large sample it is demonstrated that when the compensation is adequate, it can alter the ostensible impact of an experimental factor on the magnitude of MEPs. An additional benefit of the method is that it permits the use of most if not all datapoints, and thus preserves the full power of the experimental design. KEY POINTS: Customarily, experimental trials are rejected if electromyographic (EMG) activity recorded before transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) exceeds some threshold. In practice, adopted thresholds vary considerably (2.5-100 µV) and appear arbitrary. Most thresholds fail to obviate the influence of spinal motoneurone excitability on the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs). A new method based on linear regression is described that compensates for the relationship between ('background') EMG and MEP amplitude. The compensation is shown to alter the ostensible impact of experimental factors on the magnitude of MEPs.
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.