Back

Characterising Manual Dexterity, Motor Cortex Neuroplasticity and Intracortical Inhibition Long After Burn Injury

Rowe, G. S.; Wood, A.; Fear, M.; Edgar, D.; Miljevic, A.; Osborne, T.; Morellini, N.; Needham, M.; Vallence, A.-M.; Wood, F.

2025-10-09 neurology
10.1101/2025.10.05.25336730 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposePersistent motor dysfunction after burn injury may be due to altered motor cortex and corticospinal tract function. This study examined manual dexterity, motor cortex neuroplasticity, and intracortical inhibition in former burn patients 1-3 years post-minor injury (<10% TBSA). MethodsThirty former burn patients (TBSA: 0.78 {+/-} 1.08%) and 30 non-injured controls participated. Manual dexterity was assessed using the Purdue Pegboard. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure motor cortex excitability (motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude) and short- and long-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI, LICI) before and after paired-associative stimulation (PAS) to induce neuroplasticity. ResultsFormer burn patients performed worse than controls on the bilateral assembly subtest of the Purdue Pegboard. PAS did not induce changes in MEP amplitude but increased LICI in both former burn patients and control participants. In former burn patients, greater baseline SICI and LICI were associated with better bilateral performance. ConclusionsThese findings suggest that poorer motor function persists following minor burn injury and is associated with reduced excitability of motor cortex inhibitory circuits. Further research should explore whether targeting motor cortex inhibitory circuits can improve motor performance following burn injury. HighlightsO_LIFormer burn patients 1-3 years post-minor injury had poorer manual dexterity than controls. C_LIO_LIPaired associative stimulation increased long-interval intracortical inhibition. C_LIO_LIGreater motor cortex inhibition at rest linked to better manual dexterity in former burn patients. C_LI

Published in Burns · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.