IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0172333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb in humans

Author

Listed:
  • Siobhan C Dongés
  • Jessica M D’Amico
  • Jane E Butler
  • Janet L Taylor

Abstract

Non-invasive, weak direct current stimulation can induce changes in excitability of underlying neural tissue. Many studies have used transcranial direct current stimulation to induce changes in the brain, however more recently a number of studies have used transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation to induce changes in the spinal cord. This study further characterises the effects following cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb. In Study 1, on two separate days, participants (n = 12, 5 F) received 20 minutes of either real or sham direct current stimulation at 3 mA through electrodes placed in an anterior-posterior configuration over the neck (anode anterior). Biceps brachii, flexor carpi radialis and first dorsal interosseous responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (motor evoked potentials) and cervicomedullary stimulation (cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials) were measured before and after real or sham stimulation. In Study 2, on two separate days, participants (n = 12, 7 F) received either real or sham direct current stimulation in the same way as for Study 1. Before and after real or sham stimulation, median nerve stimulation elicited M waves and H reflexes in the flexor carpi radialis. H-reflex recruitment curves and homosynaptic depression of the H reflex were assessed. Results show that the effects of real and sham direct current stimulation did not differ for motor evoked potentials or cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials for any muscle, nor for H-reflex recruitment curve parameters or homosynaptic depression. Cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation with the parameters described here does not modify motor responses to corticospinal stimulation nor does it modify H reflexes of the upper limb. These results are important for the emerging field of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Siobhan C Dongés & Jessica M D’Amico & Jane E Butler & Janet L Taylor, 2017. "The effects of cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb in humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172333
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172333
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172333&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0172333?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    2. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Hladchenko, Myroslava & Moed, Henk F., 2021. "The effect of publication traditions and requirements in research assessment and funding policies upon the use of national journals in 28 post-socialist countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    3. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "The alleged citation advantage of video abstracts may be a matter of self-citations and self-selection bias. Comment on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts” by Zong et al," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 751-757, January.
    5. Joeri K Tijdink & Anton C M Vergouwen & Yvo M Smulders, 2013. "Publication Pressure and Burn Out among Dutch Medical Professors: A Nationwide Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    6. Daniele Fanelli & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    7. Robbie C M van Aert & Marcel A L M van Assen, 2017. "Bayesian evaluation of effect size after replicating an original study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Tian, Dan & Hu, Xiao & Qian, Yuchen & Li, Jiang, 2024. "Exploring the scientific impact of negative results," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    9. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    10. Pantazi Marius, 2021. "In order to thrive, first we need to fix accounting and management Then, we must report what matters," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 723-736, December.
    11. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    12. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    14. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    15. Anna Ulrichshofer & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Social Comparison and Optimal Contracts in the Competition for Managerial Talent," Working Papers 2020-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    16. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    17. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    18. Vitor Azevedo & Christopher Hoegner, 2023. "Enhancing stock market anomalies with machine learning," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 195-230, January.
    19. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working Papers 2020-128, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    20. Christian Heise & Joshua M. Pearce, 2020. "From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172333. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.