Comparing the effects of functional electrical stimulation versus somatosensory stimulation on increasing corticospinal excitability for a muscle of the hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrically-evoked afferent volley generated during neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can increase the excitability of corticospinal (CS) pathways. Over time, NMES can strengthen damaged CS pathways and result in enduring improvements in function for persons with central nervous system injury or disease. NMES-induced increases in CS excitability have been studied using a variety of NMES parameters, yet the influence of these stimulation parameters on increasing CS excitability is not well-defined. Typically, NMES is either delivered at intensities sufficient to generate repeated functional contractions for relatively short durations (30-40 min) or at low intensities, near motor threshold, for long durations (2 h). For the purpose of this study, these different stimulation protocols are termed functional electrical stimulation (FES) and somatosensory stimulation (SS), respectively. A direct comparison of increases in CS excitability induced by such protocols has not been conducted. Thus, the present experiments were designed to compare changes in CS excitability for abductor pollicis brevis (APB) in the hand following FES and SS of the median nerve. We hypothesized that due to the generation of a larger afferent volley, the FES would increase CS excitability more than the SS. Ten motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were evoked in APB using transcranial magnetic stimulation before and after each type of NMES. MEP amplitude increased significantly following both the FES (by 66 ± 7%) and SS (49 ± 6%), but the amplitude of these increases was not different. These results suggest that just 40 min of FES can increase CS excitability, and provide rehabilitative benefits, to the same extent as 2 h of SS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".