↓ Skip to main content

The modulatory effect of electrical stimulation on the excitability of the corticospinal tract varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The modulatory effect of electrical stimulation on the excitability of the corticospinal tract varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00835
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kei Saito, Kenichi Sugawara, Shota Miyaguchi, Takuya Matsumoto, Hikari Kirimoto, Hiroyuki Tamaki, Hideaki Onishi

Abstract

Afferent input caused by electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve increases corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions, indicating that proprioceptive sensory input arriving at the cortex plays a fundamental role in modulating corticospinal excitability. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during a shortening contraction, an isometric contraction, or no contraction of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. In some trials, electrical stimulation of the ulnar nerve was performed at 110% of the sensory threshold or 110% of the motor threshold prior to TMS. Electrical stimulation involved either a train of 50 pulses at 10 Hz or a single pulse. Shortening contraction with the train of electrical stimuli significantly increased MEP amplitudes, and the increase was dependent on the type of stimulation. Isometric contraction with the train of electrical stimuli and electrical stimulation without voluntary contraction did not affect MEP amplitudes. A single pulse of electrical stimulation did not affect MEP amplitudes in any condition. Thus, electrical-stimulation-induced modulation of corticospinal excitability varied according to the type of muscle contraction performed and the type of stimulation. These results show that the type of contraction should be considered when using electrical stimulation for rehabilitation in patients with central nervous system lesions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Sports and Recreations 5 12%
Engineering 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,383,471
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,059
of 7,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,633
of 255,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#208
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.