Effects of transcutaneous spinal stimulation on spatiotemporal cortical activation patterns: a proof-of-concept EEG study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSS) has been shown to be a promising non-invasive alternative to epidural spinal cord stimulation for improving outcomes of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, studies on the effects of TSS on cortical activation are limited. Our objectives were to evaluate the spatiotemporal effects of TSS on brain activity, and determine changes in functional connectivity under several different stimulation conditions. As a control, we also assessed the effects of functional electrical stimulation (FES) on cortical activity. Approach . Non-invasive scalp electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded during TSS or FES while five neurologically intact participants performed one of three lower-limb tasks while in the supine position: (1) A no contraction control task, (2) a rhythmic contraction task, or (3) a tonic contraction task. After EEG denoising and segmentation, independent components (ICs) were clustered across subjects to characterize sensorimotor networks in the time and frequency domains. ICs of the event related potentials (ERPs) were calculated for each cluster and condition. Next, a Generalized Partial Directed Coherence (gPDC) analysis was performed on each cluster to compare the functional connectivity between conditions and tasks. Main results . IC analysis of EEG during TSS resulted in three clusters identified at Brodmann areas (BA) 9, BA 6, and BA 4, which are areas associated with working memory, planning, and movement control. Lastly, we found significant ( p < 0.05, adjusted for multiple comparisons) increases and decreases in functional connectivity of clusters during TSS, but not during FES when compared to the no stimulation conditions. Significance. The findings from this study provide evidence of how TSS recruits cortical networks during tonic and rhythmic lower limb movements. These results have implications for the development of spinal cord-based computer interfaces, and the design of neural stimulation devices for the treatment of pain and sensorimotor deficit.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".