Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of activation of corticospinal neurons and spinal motor neurons by magnetic and electrical transcranial stimulation in the lumbosacral cord of the anaesthetized monkey

Edgley, S.·1997·Brain

Abstract

To illuminate the action of non-invasive stimuli on the human cerebral cortex, responses of corticospinal axons and of plantar alpha-motor neurons following transcranial magnetic (TMS) and electrical stimulation (TES) were recorded in the lumbosacral cord in the anaesthetized macaque monkey. A round coil was used for TMS, and the anode was located at the vertex for TES. The responses of 175 identified corticospinal axons (conduction velocities of 24-95 m/s) were recorded from the lateral corticospinal tract at the T12-L3 spinal level. A single magnetic or electrical stimulus could evoke an early spike corresponding to the direct (D) wave in surface recorded volleys and was termed a D response. In the same axon, up to four further spikes, termed indirect (I) responses, could also be evoked. At a given intensity of stimulation, D responses had clear thresholds and fixed latencies, whereas I responses were labile in both respects. For TMS and TES, the thresholds of both D and I responses were inversely correlated with axonal conduction velocity. For TMS, fast conducting axons (> 75 m/s) had lower thresholds for D responses, while more slowly conducting axons (< 55 m/s) had lower thresholds for I responses. Very few of the axons with a conduction velocity of < 40 m/s (three out of 23) gave a D response to TMS. For TES, the majority of axons had lower thresholds for D responses or a similar threshold for both D and I responses. At threshold, the latencies of D responses evoked by TMS and TES were consistent with activation within the cortex, while TES also excited some corticospinal axons deep to the cortex. At 2.5 times threshold for the D response, TMS still excited axons mostly within the cortex, but with TES the site of activation shifted by as much as 65 mm below the cortex (mode 20 mm). Intracellular responses were recorded in 23 plantar alpha motor neurons supplying intrinsic muscles of the foot. All showed monosynaptic excitatory post-synaptic potentials (EPSPs) to both TMS and TES with no significant differences in the rise times of the evoked EPSPs. At threshold for a surface corticospinal volley, the average EPSP to TES began 0.5 ms earlier than that to TMS, and 1.0 ms earlier at 2.5 times this threshold. The different sites of activation of corticospinal neurons by TMS and TES, as well as the different distribution of D and I responses that they evoke, may both contribute to the differences in the onset latencies of the EMG responses evoked by these methods in human subjects.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/brain/120.5.839

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Edgley, S.
Venue
Brain
Published
1997-05-01
Volume
120
Issue
5
Pages
839-853
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2137736400
Cited by
189
References
0
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of activation of corticospinal neurons and spinal motor neurons by magnetic and electrical transcranial stimulation in the lumbosacral cord of the anaesthetized monkey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/120.5.839
The paper
Edgley, S. (1997). Comparison of activation of corticospinal neurons and spinal motor neurons by magnetic and electrical transcranial stimulation in the lumbosacral cord of the anaesthetized monkey. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.5.839

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.