Corticospinal excitability and voluntary activation of the quadriceps muscle is not affected by a single session of anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in healthy, young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine if anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) affects corticospinal excitability (CSE) and voluntary activation (VA) of the quadriceps femoris muscle (QM). This was a double-blind, randomized study in which spine-shoulder anodal tsDCS (active electrode centered over T11-12, 2.5 mA, 20 min) was applied in a seated position. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure motor evoked potentials (MEP) and construct stimulus-response curves in healthy participants (eight females and five males, Experiment 1). VA was measured via the interpolated twitch technique, whereby muscle twitches were evoked using electrical femoral nerve stimulation and TMS (seven females and six males, Experiment 2). Measurements were carried out before, directly, and 30 min after sham and anodal tsDCS (with ≥4 days between sessions). There was no interaction between stimulation × time on stimulus-response curve expressed by slope, stimulus intensity corresponding to 50% of the maximal MEP, and peak-to-peak amplitude of the maximal MEP. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) torque did not change and VA was not affected regardless of the QM torque level (25, 50, or 100% of MVIC). A single, twenty-minute session of spine-shoulder anodal tsDCS did not increase CSE and VA of QM during submaximal and maximal contraction. This suggests that neither excitability to a known input nor responsiveness of motoneurons to submaximal and maximal cortical drive were affected by anodal tsDCS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".