ArticleHuman brain mapping2026
Test-Retest Reliability of Sensorimotor Activity Measured With Spinal Cord fMRI.
Article in Human brain mapping, 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.
- Spatial distribution of spinal cord fMRI activity with electrocutaneous stimulation.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Establishing the reliability of spinal cord functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is critical before employing it to assess experimental or clinical interventions. Previous studies have mapped human motor activity primarily to the ipsilateral ventral horn, aligning with myotomal and dermatomal projections. Despite these insights, the test-retest reliability of spinal fMRI remains under-investigated. Here we assessed spinal cord activation during a sensorimotor paradigm involving right-hand grasping and grip force estimation in 30 healthy volunteers. Participants completed two identical scanning visits, each time performing the same task twice, enabling the investigation of test-retest reliability both within a single experimental visit and between visits performed on different days. Aggregating all task runs, motor-evoked activation was observed in ipsilateral ventro-dorsal regions of spinal segmental levels C5-T1, as well as in medial regions of levels C2-C3. Despite highly reliable task performance (grip force) and fMRI signal quality (temporal signal-to-noise ratio), the reliability of motor activation was predominantly poor-to-fair both within and between visits, with notable variability in spatial distribution observed across task runs. Increasing the number of task runs per individual improved the robustness of group-level activation, as indexed by higher activated voxel count, larger cluster spatial extent, and attenuated t-statistic distribution. Although we demonstrated that motor-evoked activation corresponds to the known neuroanatomical organisation of motor circuits, its low test-retest reliability presents a challenge for wider applications of spinal fMRI. Understanding the drivers of low reliability in functional imaging is warranted, but we suggest that looking beyond measurement error is required, including careful consideration of inherent within-individual variability underpinned by neurophysiological and psychological factors.
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.