Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigates corticospinal facilitation effects from varying intensities of peripheral magnetic stimulation, highlighting afferent contributions.
Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) is increasingly used in neurorehabilitation, yet the optimal intensity for inducing corticospinal facilitation and underlying afferent mechanisms remain unclear. We investigated the intensity-dependent effects of PMS on corticospinal excitability and single motor unit responses, and tested the contribution of group I afferents. Healthy young adults received repetitive PMS over the extensor carpi radialis (ECR) in a crossover design at 0.9×motor threshold (MT), 1.2×MT, and high-intensity stimulation individually adjusted to induce maximal wrist dorsiflexion (mean: 1.8±0.3×MT). Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation were recorded from the ECR and flexor carpi radialis (FCR) before and during the intervention (total 15 min). To examine group I afferent contribution, the same high-intensity protocol was applied during upper-arm ischemia after the ECR H-reflex was reduced to <10% of baseline. Sensory-motor input characteristics across stimulation intensities were compared using post-stimulus time histograms of ECR single motor unit firings. High-intensity PMS significantly increased ECR MEPs after 9-min, whereas PMS at 1.2×MT required 15-min. PMS at 0.9×MT did not induce significant MEP changes and FCR MEPs remained unaltered. ECR MEPs remained elevated for up to 30 min after 9-min of high-intensity PMS. This enhancement was abolished by ischemia, and suprathreshold PMS elicited a short-latency peak in firing probability, consistent with monosynaptic Ia excitation, whose amplitude increased with stimulation intensity. These findings suggest that repetitive PMS above MT facilitates corticospinal excitability in an intensity-dependent manner and depends on large-diameter group I afferent input, with additional evidence consistent with a substantial Ia component.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoshida et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: