Artificial organs · 2025
The Neurophysiological Effects of Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation With and Without a High Frequency Carrier in Able-Bodied Adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gawne Frances, Massey Sarah, Duffell Lynsey
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) is a promising avenue in spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation; however, high currents are required to excite afferents in the spinal cord roots, which patients may not tolerate. Modulating tSCS pulses with a kHz carrier frequency (kHz-tSCS) may be used to reduce discomfort; however, the way that kHz-tSCS interacts with neural networks, compared to unmodulated pulses (conv-tSCS), is largely unknown.
METHOD: Ten able-bodied participants received conv-tSCS, kHz-tSCS, and sham interventions for 20 min over the C7/T1 vertebrae. Charge delivery of both waveforms was measured. Posterior root reflexes (PRRs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the Flexor Carpi Radialis (FCR), Extensor Carpi Radialis Longus (ECRL), Flexor Carpi Ulnaris (FCU), and Brachioradialis (BR). PRR and MEP peak-peak amplitudes were measured at baseline, 0-, 15-, and 30-min post-intervention.
RESULTS: The charge required to activate posterior roots with kHz-tSCS was 3.8 times higher than with conv-tSCS (p < 0.001). Differences in PRR amplitude were found in the FCR between conv-tSCS and kHz-tSCS at 0- and 15-min post-intervention (p < 0.028). PRR inhibition was found in the FCR between baseline and 30-min post-intervention with conv-tSCS and the sham intervention (p < 0.037). No change in PRR amplitudes was found for kHz-tSCS. No other muscle showed any differences in PRR responses between intervention groups. Neither intervention caused any effect in MEP responses across time or between intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS: kHz-tSCS was a less efficient waveform for stimulation. Differences in effects on spinal excitability were found to be inconclusive, and conv-tSCS and kHz-tSCS had no effect on corticospinal excitability. Significant PRR inhibition in the FCR was found with this experimental setup even when no stimulation was applied, suggesting a natural reduction in spinal excitability caused by participants laying supine for an extended period. Future research should consider how participant positioning could affect neural excitability.
METHOD: Ten able-bodied participants received conv-tSCS, kHz-tSCS, and sham interventions for 20 min over the C7/T1 vertebrae. Charge delivery of both waveforms was measured. Posterior root reflexes (PRRs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the Flexor Carpi Radialis (FCR), Extensor Carpi Radialis Longus (ECRL), Flexor Carpi Ulnaris (FCU), and Brachioradialis (BR). PRR and MEP peak-peak amplitudes were measured at baseline, 0-, 15-, and 30-min post-intervention.
RESULTS: The charge required to activate posterior roots with kHz-tSCS was 3.8 times higher than with conv-tSCS (p < 0.001). Differences in PRR amplitude were found in the FCR between conv-tSCS and kHz-tSCS at 0- and 15-min post-intervention (p < 0.028). PRR inhibition was found in the FCR between baseline and 30-min post-intervention with conv-tSCS and the sham intervention (p < 0.037). No change in PRR amplitudes was found for kHz-tSCS. No other muscle showed any differences in PRR responses between intervention groups. Neither intervention caused any effect in MEP responses across time or between intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS: kHz-tSCS was a less efficient waveform for stimulation. Differences in effects on spinal excitability were found to be inconclusive, and conv-tSCS and kHz-tSCS had no effect on corticospinal excitability. Significant PRR inhibition in the FCR was found with this experimental setup even when no stimulation was applied, suggesting a natural reduction in spinal excitability caused by participants laying supine for an extended period. Future research should consider how participant positioning could affect neural excitability.