↓ Skip to main content

No relation between afferent facilitation induced by digital nerve stimulation and the latency of cutaneomuscular reflexes and somatosensory evoked magnetic fields

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
No relation between afferent facilitation induced by digital nerve stimulation and the latency of cutaneomuscular reflexes and somatosensory evoked magnetic fields
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sho Kojima, Hideaki Onishi, Kazuhiro Sugawara, Shota Miyaguchi, Hikari Kirimoto, Hiroyuki Tamaki, Hiroshi Shirozu, Shigeki Kameyama

Abstract

Primary motor cortex (M1) excitability can be assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and can be modulated by a conditioning electrical stimulus delivered to a peripheral nerve prior to TMS. This is known as afferent facilitation (AF). The aim of this study was to determine whether AF can be induced by digital nerve stimulation and to evaluate the relation between the interstimulus interval (ISI) required for AF and the latency of the E2 component of the cutaneomuscular reflex (CMR) and the prominent somatosensory evoked field (SEF) deflection that occurs approximately 70 ms after digital nerve stimulation (P60m). Stimulation of the digital nerve of the right index finger was followed, at various time intervals, by single-pulse TMS applied to the contralateral hemisphere. The ISI between digital nerve stimulation and TMS was 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100, 140, 180, 200, or 220 ms. Single-pulse TMS was performed alone as a control. SEFs were recorded following digital nerve stimulation of the index finger, and the equivalent current dipole of prominent deflections that occurred around 70 ms after the stimulation was calculated. CMRs were recorded following digital nerve stimulation during muscle contraction. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were facilitated at an ISI between 50 and 100 ms in 11 of 13 subjects, and the facilitated MEP amplitude was larger than the unconditioned MEP amplitude (p < 0.01). There was no significant correlation between the ISI at which AF was maximal and the latency of the P60m component of the SEF (r = -0.50, p = 0.12) or the E2 component of the CMR (r = -0.54, p = 0.88). These results indicate that the precise ISI required for AF cannot be predicted using SEF or CMR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Professor 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 35%
Psychology 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,314,171
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,263
of 7,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,596
of 352,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#130
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.