RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evidence for Impaired Homeostatic Regulation of Plasticity after Spinal Cord Injury
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2026.03.24.26349041
DO 10.64898/2026.03.24.26349041
A1 Chowdhury, Nahian S
A1 Cheng, Donovan
A1 Nikolin, Stevan
A1 Quidé, Yann
A1 Hesam-Shariati, Negin
A1 Gustin, Sylvia M
YR 2026
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2026/03/30/2026.03.24.26349041.abstract
AB Background Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with widespread reorganisation of cortical sensorimotor circuits. Persistent complications such as spasticity and neuropathic pain suggest that homeostatic plasticity, which normally helps stabilise and constrain activity-dependent changes in sensorimotor circuits, may be disrupted after SCI. Homeostatic plasticity can be probed using repeated blocks of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); in healthy individuals, two closely spaced excitatory blocks typically leads to an inhibitory response, reflected as a reduction in corticomotor excitability.Objective To determine whether individuals with SCI show reduced homeostatic suppression of corticospinal excitability in response to repeated anodal tDCS, compared with healthy controls.Methods Twenty adults with thoracic or below SCI and 20 healthy controls completed three counterbalanced sessions. Each session comprised two 10-minute blocks of 2 mA tDCS separated by 5 minutes, with the second block always being anodal tDCS over left primary motor cortex. The first block was either anodal, cathodal, or sham tDCS, yielding 3 condition types: anodal-anodal, cathodal-anodal, and sham-anodal. To assess corticomotor excitability, transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited at baseline, after priming, and every 5 minutes for 60 minutes after the second block. The primary outcome was percent change in MEP amplitude from baseline.Results In the anodal-anodal condition, the SCI group showed greater facilitation than controls over 0-30 minutes (estimate = 83.09, 95% CI 49.75 to 116.43, p < 0.001), suggestive of a weaker homeostatic response. The cathodal-anodal condition led to a significant overall facilitatory effect with no between-group difference, while the sham-anodal condition showed no change in MEP amplitude relative to baseline. Within the SCI group, exploratory subgroup analysis suggests that those with neuropathic pain and a traumatic injury showed greater facilitation in the anodal-anodal condition than those without these features, indicative of a weaker homeostatic response.Conclusions SCI is associated with impairment in the homeostatic regulation of corticomotor excitability following repeated excitatory brain stimulation. Disrupted plasticity stabilisation may be relevant to persistent symptoms such as neuropathic pain.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by the Doris and June Cather Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to NC and the Rebecca Cooper Fellowship awarded to SGAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study received UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee approval (irecs7215). Written informed consent was obtained before any study procedures.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors