Effects of motor stimulation of the tibial nerve on corticospinal excitability of abductor hallucis and pelvic floor muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Peripheral nerve stimulation can modulate the excitability of corticospinal pathways of muscles in the upper and lower limbs. Further, the pattern of peripheral nerve stimulation (continuous vs. intermittent) may be an important factor determining the modulation of this corticospinal excitability. The pelvic floor muscles (PFM) are crucial for maintaining urinary continence in humans, and share spinal segmental innervation with the tibial nerve. We explored the idea of whether the neuromodulatory effects of tibial nerve stimulation (TibNS) could induce effects on somatic pathways to the PFM. We evaluated the effects of two patterns of stimulation (intermittent vs. continuous) on corticospinal excitability of the PFM compared to its effect on the abductor hallucis (AH) muscle (which is directly innervated by the tibial nerve). We hypothesized that intermittent TibNS would increase, while continuous stimulation would decrease, the excitability of both AH and PFM. Methods: Twenty able-bodied adults (20-33 years of age) enrolled in this study. TibNS was delivered either intermittently (1 ms pulses delivered at 30Hz with an on:off duty cycle of 600:400 ms, for 60 min), or continuously (1 ms pulses delivered at 30Hz for 36 min) just above the motor threshold of the AH. We randomized the order of the stimulation pattern and tested them on separate days. We used surface electromyography (EMG) to record motor-evoked responses (MEP) in the PFM and AH following transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We generated stimulus-response (SR) curves to quantify the changes in peak-to-peak MEP amplitude relative to TMS intensity to assess changes in corticospinal excitability pre- and post-stimulation. Results and Conclusion: We found that TibNS increased corticospinal excitability only to AH, with no effects in PFM. There was no difference in responses to continuous vs. intermittent stimulation. Our results indicate a lack of effect of TibNS on descending somatic pathways to the PFM, but further investigation is required to explore other stimulation parameters and whether neuromodulatory effects may be spinal in origin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".