Cited by 217Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringMuscle activation and electromyography studiesPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research

Orderly recruitment of motor units under optical control in vivo

Open access
Llewellyn, Michael E, Thompson, Kimberly R, Deisseroth, Karl, Delp, Scott L·2010·Nature Medicine

Abstract

A drawback of electrical stimulation for muscle control is that large, fatigable motor units are preferentially recruited before smaller motor units by the lowest-intensity electrical cuff stimulation. This phenomenon limits therapeutic applications because it is precisely the opposite of the normal physiological (orderly) recruitment pattern; therefore, a mechanism to achieve orderly recruitment has been a long-sought goal in physiology, medicine and engineering. Here we demonstrate a technology for reliable orderly recruitment in vivo. We find that under optical control with microbial opsins, recruitment of motor units proceeds in the physiological recruitment sequence, as indicated by multiple independent measures of motor unit recruitment including conduction latency, contraction and relaxation times, stimulation threshold and fatigue. As a result, we observed enhanced performance and reduced fatigue in vivo. These findings point to an unanticipated new modality of neural control with broad implications for nervous system and neuromuscular physiology, disease research and therapeutic innovation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nm.2228

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Llewellyn, M. E., Thompson, K. R., Deisseroth, K., & Delp, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Deisseroth, Karl
  • Delp, Scott L
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2010-09-26
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
1161-1165
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2110181951
Cited by
217
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 13
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD065690)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Photoreceptor and optogenetics research
Keywords
motor unit recruitment, microbial opsins, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, neuromuscular fatigue, stimulation threshold, neuroprosthetics, neurorehabilitation
MeSH terms
Channelrhodopsins, Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electromyography, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Motor Neurons, Muscle Contraction, Peripheral Nerves, Reaction Time, Recruitment, Neurophysiological, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review