ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Corticospinal excitability scales with global arm cycling intensity but not instantaneous force.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Corticospinal excitability (CSE) is modulated during arm cycling, but its relationship with force production remains unclear. This study examined (1) how force output changes across arm cycling workloads and (2) whether CSE scales with force during rhythmic movement. Eleven healthy adults performed bilateral arm cycling at 25, 50, and 100 W at 60 rpm. Vector force was measured continuously across crank positions using instrumented handles. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited with transcranial magnetic stimulation and cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited with transmastoid electrical stimulation were recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii at the 6 o'clock position to assess supraspinal and spinal excitability, respectively. Vector force increased with workload (p < 0.001) and peaked between 4 and 6 o'clock. MEP and CMEP amplitudes increased with workload in both the biceps (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively) and triceps (p = 0.003 and p = 0.041, respectively). Across pooled workloads, vector force was correlated with biceps MEP (r = 0.53, p = 0.002) and CMEP amplitudes (r = 0.37, p = 0.034), and with triceps MEP (r = 0.39, p = 0.031) and CMEP amplitudes (r = 0.50, p = 0.005). Within individual workloads, correlations between force and neural measures were consistently weak and non-significant for both muscles. These findings demonstrate that corticospinal excitability during arm cycling scales with overall workload but not with instantaneous force production, supporting the concept that descending neural drive primarily reflects task-level regulation rather than moment-to-moment force encoding during rhythmic movement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42859184What 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.