Spinal excitability following sensory electrical stimulation of the upper limb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine if sensory electrical stimulation (SES), below motor threshold, would reduce spinal excitability via reciprocal inhibition (RI) and determine if any changes were sex-related. Eighteen healthy participants (11 males and 7 females) participated in a pre-post comparison study. The Hoffmann (H-) reflex was elicited to assess the spinal excitability of Flexor Carpi Radialis (FCR) and the influence of RI from Extensor Carpi Radialis Longus (ECRL) on FCR using a paired conditioning pulse paradigm. A 15-min bout of SES (4 pulse bursts at 100 Hz) was applied to ECRL, and the H-reflexes were measured at 0- and 20-min post SES. A linear mixed model regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of stimulus order, conditioning, sex, and time on the FCR H-reflex. All participants experienced RI from the conditioning pulses, with females having significantly greater suppression than males (mean difference; MD = 0.026). For males, SES produced a depression in FCR excitability (MD = 0.023 at time 0; MD = 0.015 at 20 min post-SES) with no changes in RI. SES had no effect on FCR excitability or RI in females. The potential for SES to produce changes in antagonist excitability was sex-related, which may have important rehabilitation considerations.
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) | 0.002 | 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".