Cited by 370Spinal Cord Injury ResearchNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Electrical spinal cord stimulation must preserve proprioception to enable locomotion in humans with spinal cord injury

Open access
Formento, Emanuele, Minassian, Karen, Wagner, Fabien, Mignardot, Jean Baptiste, Le Goff-Mignardot, Camille G., Rowald, Andreas, Bloch, Jocelyne, Micera, Silvestro +2 more·2018·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the spinal cord restores locomotion in animal models of spinal cord injury but is less effective in humans. Here we hypothesized that this interspecies discrepancy is due to interference between EES and proprioceptive information in humans. Computational simulations and preclinical and clinical experiments reveal that EES blocks a significant amount of proprioceptive input in humans, but not in rats. This transient deafferentation prevents modulation of reciprocal inhibitory networks involved in locomotion and reduces or abolishes the conscious perception of leg position. Consequently, continuous EES can only facilitate locomotion within a narrow range of stimulation parameters and is unable to provide meaningful locomotor improvements in humans without rehabilitation. Simulations showed that burst stimulation and spatiotemporal stimulation profiles mitigate the cancellation of proprioceptive information, enabling robust control over motor neuron activity. This demonstrates the importance of stimulation protocols that preserve proprioceptive information to facilitate walking with EES.

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/s41593-018-0262-6

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • EES is known to enable walking through the recruitment of large-diameter afferents.

    “EES is known to enable walking through the recruitment of large-diameter afferents37,38.”

    From The neurons that restore walking after paralysis (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

  • A validated finite element model of epidural electrical stimulation of the lumbar spinal cord was used to estimate the proportion of afferent and efferent fibres recruited at a given stimulation amplitude.

    “A validated finite element model of EES of the lumbar spinal cord37,38 was used to estimate the proportion of afferent and efferent fibres recruited at a given stimulation amplitude.”

    From The neurons that restore walking after paralysis (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Computer simulations were performed on a previously validated spiking neural network model reproducing proprioceptive feedback circuits associated with a pair of antagonist muscles in the lumbar spinal cord of rodents.

    “We performed computer simulations on a previously validated spiking neural network model37,38, reproducing the proprioceptive feedback circuits associated with a pair of antagonist muscles in the lumbar spinal cord of rodents.”

    From The neurons that restore walking after paralysis (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

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
Formento, E., Minassian, K., Wagner, F., Mignardot, J. B., Le Goff-Mignardot, C. G., Rowald, A., Bloch, J., Micera, S., Capogrosso, M., & Courtine, G.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • University of Fribourg (CH)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
  • Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (IT)
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2018-10-31
Volume
21
Issue
12
Pages
1728-1741
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2898777639
Cited by
370
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 9
FWCI
26.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • RERO DOC (Universität Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (720270, 785907)
  • European Commission (ERC-2015-CoG, 25761, 682999, 720270, HORIZON2020, 785907)
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
  • International Foundation for Research in Paraplegia
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (720270, 25761)
  • Innosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für Innovationsförderung
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (720270, 785907)
  • Eurostars
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
epidural stimulation, spinal cord injury, proprioception, locomotion, deafferentation, reciprocal inhibition, burst stimulation, motor neuron activity, species differences, rat model, computer simulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Locomotion, Models, Biological, Proprioception, Spinal Cord, Spinal Cord Injuries, Walking, Muscle, Skeletal, Feedback, Physiological, Rats, Spinal Cord Stimulation

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