A pilot study examining the impact of electrode configuration in transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in spinal cord injury

Study design Prospective trial. Objective To evaluate the impact on muscle activation of different anatomical configurations of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation electrodes amongst SCI and control patients. Summary of background data Spinal cord stimulation has garnered increased attention as a promising treatment for spinal cord injury (SCI). However, existing studies on transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation consist of highly variable methodologies and lack standard protocols. Methods Two adult SCI participants (PS01—T12 AIS D, and PS02—T2 AIS B) and two healthy adult controls (PS03, and PS04) were prospectively enrolled after IRB approval. Electromyography was used to record activity in the bilateral tibialis anterior (TA) and biceps femoris (BF). Four electrode configurations were trialed—cathode placement only at T11-T12 (montage T11-T12) versus combined configurations with cathodes at T11-T12 and at L1-L2, L3-L4, or S1-S2; anode placement was always at the bilateral iliac crests. Motor response was defined as EMG change >20 μV, as defined in the literature. Results SCI participants exhibited overall decreased motor responses compared to controls, other than PS01 at the T11-T12 montage. The majority of motor responses from SCI participants did not meet the 20 µV threshold, and did not show the same consistent cranial to caudal pattern. PS01’s highest response was at T11-T12/L1-L2 (BF: 265.52 µV), whereas PS02 was highest at T11-T12 (TA: 39.73 µV). Overall, the motor response from the motor complete SCI (PS02—T2 AIS B) was substantially less than the motor response from the motor and sensory incomplete SCI. Conclusion When performing transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation, the magnitude of motor response appears to vary with both the exact anatomical electrode configuration and the presence/severity of SCI. SCI participants demonstrated generally decreased motor responses, and a less predictable topographic pattern. Further work is needed to determine the ideal electrode configurations for different patients and spinal cord injury types.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Technology and Disability
Published
2026-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10554181261439683
Primary Topic
Spinal Cord Injury Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A pilot study examining the impact of electrode configuration in transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in spinal cord injury

Shirin Madarshahian, Chloe Herczeg, Rajkishen Narayanan, Rachel Huang et al.
Technology and Disability
Spinal Cord Injury Research
article

A pilot study examining the impact of electrode configuration in transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in spinal cord injury

Shirin Madarshahian, Chloe Herczeg, Rajkishen Narayanan, Rachel Huang, Alessandro Napoli, James Harrop, Tatiana Guerrero-David, Yasmine Eichbaum, Jonathan Dalton, Robert J. Oris, Michael Trakhtorchuk, Ali Farooqi, Kristin Gustafson, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Mijail Serruya, Maryjane Mulcahey
article en

Abstract

Study design Prospective trial. Objective To evaluate the impact on muscle activation of different anatomical configurations of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation electrodes amongst SCI and control patients. Summary of background data Spinal cord stimulation has garnered increased attention as a promising treatment for spinal cord injury (SCI). However, existing studies on transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation consist of highly variable methodologies and lack standard protocols. Methods Two adult SCI participants (PS01—T12 AIS D, and PS02—T2 AIS B) and two healthy adult controls (PS03, and PS04) were prospectively enrolled after IRB approval. Electromyography was used to record activity in the bilateral tibialis anterior (TA) and biceps femoris (BF). Four electrode configurations were trialed—cathode placement only at T11-T12 (montage T11-T12) versus combined configurations with cathodes at T11-T12 and at L1-L2, L3-L4, or S1-S2; anode placement was always at the bilateral iliac crests. Motor response was defined as EMG change >20 μV, as defined in the literature. Results SCI participants exhibited overall decreased motor responses compared to controls, other than PS01 at the T11-T12 montage. The majority of motor responses from SCI participants did not meet the 20 µV threshold, and did not show the same consistent cranial to caudal pattern. PS01’s highest response was at T11-T12/L1-L2 (BF: 265.52 µV), whereas PS02 was highest at T11-T12 (TA: 39.73 µV). Overall, the motor response from the motor complete SCI (PS02—T2 AIS B) was substantially less than the motor response from the motor and sensory incomplete SCI. Conclusion When performing transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation, the magnitude of motor response appears to vary with both the exact anatomical electrode configuration and the presence/severity of SCI. SCI participants demonstrated generally decreased motor responses, and a less predictable topographic pattern. Further work is needed to determine the ideal electrode configurations for different patients and spinal cord injury types.

Technology and Disability
Thomas Jefferson University (US), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Spinal Cord Injury Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.