ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Specificity of Pairing Afferent and Efferent Activity for Inducing Neural Plasticity with an Associative Brain-Computer Interface.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in mechanisms of neuroplasticity induced by multimodal closed-loop brain-computer interfaces after stroke.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer interface-based (BCI) training induces neural plasticity and promotes motor recovery in stroke patients by pairing movement intentions with congruent electrical stimulation of the affected limb, eliciting somatosensory afferent feedback. However, this training can potentially be refined further to enhance rehabilitation outcomes. It is not known how specific the afferent feedback needs to be with respect to the efferent activity from the brain. This study investigated how corticospinal excitability, a marker of neural plasticity, was modulated by four types of BCI-like interventions that varied in the specificity of afferent feedback relative to the efferent activity. Fifteen able-bodied participants performed four interventions: (1) wrist extensions paired with radial nerve peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) (matching feedback), (2) wrist extensions paired with ulnar nerve PES (non-matching feedback), (3) wrist extensions paired with sham radial nerve PES (no feedback), and (4) palmar grasps paired with radial nerve PES (partially matching feedback). Each intervention consisted of 100 pairings between visually cued movements and PES. The PES was triggered based on the peak of maximal negativity of the movement-related cortical potential associated with the visually cued movement. Before, immediately after, and 30 min after the intervention, transcranial magnetic stimulation-elicited motor-evoked potentials were recorded to assess corticospinal excitability. Only wrist extensions paired with radial nerve PES significantly increased the corticospinal excitability with 57 ± 49% and 65 ± 52% immediately and 30 min after the intervention, respectively, compared to the pre-intervention measurement. In conclusion, maximizing the induction of neural plasticity with an associative BCI requires that the afferent feedback be precisely matched to the efferent brain activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.