Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 14;19(5):e0300053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300053

Optimizing assessment of low frequency H-reflex depression in persons with spinal cord injury

Charles J Creech 1,2, Jasmine M Hope 3, Anastasia Zarkou 1, Edelle C Field-Fote 1,2,3,*
Editor: Alexander Rabchevsky4
PMCID: PMC11093375  PMID: 38743683

Abstract

Considering the growing interest in clinical applications of neuromodulation, assessing effects of various modulatory approaches is increasingly important. Monosynaptic spinal reflexes undergo depression following repeated activation, offering a means to quantify neuromodulatory influences. Following spinal cord injury (SCI), changes in reflex modulation are associated with spasticity and impaired motor control. To assess disrupted reflex modulation, low-frequency depression (LFD) of Hoffman (H)-reflex excitability is examined, wherein the amplitudes of conditioned reflexes are compared to an unconditioned control reflex. Alternatively, some studies utilize paired-pulse depression (PPD) in place of the extended LFD train. While both protocols induce similar amounts of H-reflex depression in neurologically intact individuals, this may not be the case for persons with neuropathology. We compared the H-reflex depression elicited by PPD and by trains of 3–10 pulses to an 11-pulse LFD protocol in persons with incomplete SCI. The amount of depression produced by PPD was less than an 11-pulse train (mean difference = 0.137). When compared to the 11-pulse train, the 5-pulse train had a Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) of 0.905 and a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.818. Therefore, a 5-pulse train for assessing LFD elicits modulation similar to the 11-pulse train and thus we recommend its use in lieu of longer trains.

Introduction

Following spinal cord injury (SCI), impaired modulation of spinal reflex excitability is associated with spasticity [1]. Increasingly, electroceutical interventions, such as transcutaneous and epidural spinal stimulation, are being used to counter this impaired modulation [2] and reduce spasticity [35]. Modulation of spinal circuits through these interventions has been associated with improved functional outcomes and mobility [6, 7]. As use of these electroceutical and other neuromodulatory approaches grows, it is important to optimize tools to assess their efficacy.

The Hoffman (H)- reflex is a commonly used probe of spinal reflex excitability of monosynaptic spinal circuits [8], which is modulated in a rate-dependent manner via post activation depression (PAD) [9]. PAD of the H-reflex is often assessed via low frequency depression (LFD) using repeated pulses of stimulation [1014]. LFD attenuates H-reflex amplitude in people who are neurologically intact [15], however, in persons with SCI, the magnitude of H-reflex modulation resulting from LFD is reduced [16]. The result of this reduced reflex modulation is enhanced synaptic excitation, which is commonly manifested as spasticity.

The LFD protocol consists of a train of pulses delivered at a specific interpulse interval, with each pulse eliciting a reflex response. The response to the first pulse is considered the control response to which the subsequent conditioned responses are compared. LFD protocols typically require an extended testing period of 10 [16, 17] to 20 pulses per train [18]. If multiple trains are completed, this may result in hundreds of stimuli being applied to a participant. This extended testing period imposes a burden on participants, many of whom must be mindful of their skin health. Furthermore, LFD protocols can elicit clonus or other reflex responses in persons with SCI, compromising data quality [19].

Paired-pulse depression (PPD) is an alternative approach to assessing H-reflex modulation in which only 2 H-reflexes are elicited and their amplitudes compared. A study in neurologically intact individuals demonstrates that PPD yields comparable depression to a 10-pulse LFD train [17]. Such a protocol overcomes the disadvantages of the LFD protocol and may be a valuable tool for assessing neuromodulation. However, if the PPD protocol is to be used as an alternative to the LFD protocol it is first necessary to determine whether the two protocols yield similar outcomes in individuals with neurologic conditions in whom reflex modulation is impaired.

The purpose of this study was to compare, in participants with incomplete SCI, the magnitude of reflex depression elicited by a typical 11-pulse LFD protocol, a typical PPD protocol, and stimulation trains of varying lengths. Identifying the minimum number of pulses required to obtain a reliable estimate of LFD could reduce the time requirement and discomfort associated with assessing efficacy of neuromodulation interventions in participants with neurologic conditions.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted with ethical approval from the Shepherd Center Research Review Committee. All participants gave written informed consent prior to study enrollment, which was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The current study was a supplemental analysis of data collected as part of the second phase of a larger study focused on physical therapeutic spasticity interventions for persons with SCI that was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02340910). Participant recruitment for this phase began on March 20th, 2017 and concluded on March 5th, 2020.

Participants

Individuals were eligible for participation in the larger study if they met the following inclusion criteria: 16–72 years of age, ≥ 6 months since time of SCI, neurologic level of injury at or above spinal level T12, able to sit at the edge of a mat without the assistance of another person, have mild spasticity affecting muscles in at least one lower extremity (as determined by participant self-report), and are able to provide own consent. The current study analyzed data from participants who met the additional inclusion criterion of having a measurable H-reflex that met our amplitude criteria during electrophysiological testing. Individuals were excluded for the following reasons: progressive or potentially progressive spinal lesions, history of cardiovascular irregularities, orthopedic conditions that would limit their participation in the protocol (e.g., knee or hip flexion contractures > 10°), or problems following instructions.

Electrophysiologic measurements

Electrophysiologic tests were performed with participants in a comfortable, semi-reclined position on an adjustable height mat with both legs fully extended. Participants were instructed to remain as relaxed and still as possible throughout the testing. The more spastic leg as self-reported by participants was assessed during testing. Participants’ skin was cleansed with alcohol and treated with an abrasive paste (Nuprep, Weaver and Company, Aurora, CO, USA) to improve adhesion and to reduce skin resistance prior to placement of pre-amplified (differential) electromyography (EMG) sensors (MA411, Motion Lab Systems, Baton Rouge, LA; Input Impedance > 100,000,000 ohms, CMR > 100 dB at 65 Hz; pre-amplification x20) and stimulating electrodes. The EMG sensors had a body size of 38 x 19 x 8 mm and consisted of two stainless steel 12-millimeter (mm) disks separated by a 13 x 3 mm bar. The inter-electrode distance was 17 mm. EMG sensors were placed over the distal portion of the tibialis anterior muscle belly and over the soleus muscle at the midline of the posterior calf between the heads of the gastrocnemius. EMG sensor placement was verified and activity was recorded (sampling rate of 1,000 Hz) using commercial software (Spike2 version 8.02e; Cambridge Electronic Design Limited, Cambridge, England) at a gain of 1.

Fabric stimulating electrodes were placed over the tibial nerve in the popliteal fossa (cathode; 1.25” diameter) and over the center of the patella (anode; 2.0” diameter). Monophasic isolated square-wave pulses with a pulse width of 1 millisecond (ms) produced by an electrical stimulator (Grass S88x, Grass Technologies, West Warwick, RI) were used to trigger a constant-current stimulator (Digitimer DS7A, Digitimer, Hertfordshire, UK). The initial stimulus began with an intensity of 5 milliamperes (mA), increasing by 2–3 mA until an H-reflex was elicited. To avoid rate-sensitive effects of stimulation, the inter-pulse interval was 10 seconds. The position of the stimulating electrode was adjusted to obtain the largest peak-to-peak (μV) H-reflex at a minimal intensity. Reflexes were observed using oscilloscopic software (Signal version 6.02; Cambridge Electronic Design Limited, Cambridge, England) and were not filtered. An H-reflex recruitment curve was then obtained by increasing stimulus intensity by 2.5–5.0 mA until a plateau of the M-wave (M-max) was identified. The stimulus intensity corresponding to 10–30% of the M-max amplitude was identified and was utilized for the LFD trains. This range was selected as it represents the ascending portion of the H-reflex recruitment curve where the threshold difference between various motor units is smallest [20], allowing for efficient facilitation or inhibition of the reflex [8].

The data collected during this electrophysiologic testing was utilized for the calculation of LFD, PPD, and depression of abbreviated trains. The H-reflex evoked by the first stimulus was considered the control reflex (H1). The 10 reflexes elicited following H1 were considered conditioned reflexes (H2, H3, etc.). Each LFD train consisted of 11 stimuli delivered with a 1- second inter-pulse interval (i.e., 1 Hz). While previous studies have demonstrated that higher frequencies may result in greater reflex depression [20], they can also be associated with increased muscle spasms in people with SCI [19]. The M-waves accompanying reflex responses were also recorded. In total, each participant underwent at least 10 LFD trains, with some completing more to account for trains in which muscle spasms occurred or if H1 did not fall within 10–30% of the M-max amplitude. To accommodate variability in control H-reflex amplitudes, the first 4 trial sequences with H1 amplitudes between 10% and 30% of the M-max were analyzed.

To determine the magnitude of depression associated with the 11-pulse LFD train, the conditioned reflex responses evoked by pulses H2 –H11 were averaged and normalized to H1 (average of H2-11/H1). To determine the magnitude of depression associated with PPD, the conditioned reflex response elicited by H2 was normalized to H1 (H2/H1). Likewise, this procedure was used to determine the magnitude of depression associated with abbreviated trains of different lengths (i.e., average of H2-3/H1, average of H2-4/H1… average of H2-10/H1).

Data analysis

All data acquired were continuous. Statistical tests were conducted using commercially available software (SPSS Version 28, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY USA). Confidence intervals (95%) were calculated using Excel (Version 2312, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA USA). The mean and standard deviation are displayed as (mean ± standard deviation).

M-wave reliability

Based on the sample size utilized during the analysis of the M-waves, non-parametric tests were considered. To verify that the stimuli were recruiting similar numbers of motoneurons over the course of the conditioning train, a Friedman test was performed to assess the effect of number of elicited reflexes on M-wave amplitude.

Optimal pulse train for LFD estimation in SCI

Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) was used to assess the strength of the relationship between the conditioned responses elicited by 11-pulse LFD train and the conditioned responses elicited by PPD and by the abbreviated trains. Correlation coefficients were classified as negligible (0.00 to 0.30), low (0.30 to 0.50), moderate (0.50 to 0.70), high (0.70 to 0.90), or very high (0.90 to 1.00) [21]. In addition, mean difference and the proportions of variance (R2) were calculated.

Results

Demographics

Of the 38 individuals enrolled in the larger study, 20 participants (Mean age = 50.25 ± 14.26 years; 10 males, 10 females) met the original inclusion criteria and had a reliable initial H-reflex that met the criteria of being between 10% and 30% of the maximum M-wave. Protocol deviations were completed for participant 71 (<6 months since injury) and 73 (> 72 years of age). Participant demographics for the participants included in the present study are given in Table 1. An H-reflex representative of those elicited during this study is presented in Fig 1.

Table 1. Demographics for all participants enrolled in the larger study.

Participant ID Sex Age (y) Time since injury; y (m) AIS Neurologic Level of Injury
38 M 54 6 (9) D C4
39 F 63 6 (7) C C7
40 F 21 1 (0) D T11
43 M 49 29 (5) D C5
46 M 59 5 (6) D C5
51 F 60 7 (2) D C5
52 M 61 2 (0) D C1
55 M 44 19 (11) D C2
59 F 39 1 (6) C C7
60 F 29 0 (11) D T8
61 F 54 1 (5) C C8
62 M 40 0 (8) D C4
65 M 53 0 (6) D C3
67 M 60 3 (3) D C5
68 M 44 8 (7) D T8
70 F 59 4 (8) D C7
71 F 58 0 (5) B T5
72 M 22 0 (6) C C4
73 F 75 6 (11) D C6
74 F 61 15 (3) D C5

Abbreviations: y, years; m, months; AIS, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale

Fig 1. H- and M- wave tracings from participant 59.

Fig 1

Tracings from the control H-reflex (H1), the first conditioned reflex (H2), and the 10th conditioned reflex (H11) are included.

M-wave reliability

An M-wave representative of those elicited during this study is included in Fig 1. There were no significant differences between the M-wave amplitudes at each of the 11 pulses of the LFD train (χ2(10) = 5.642, p = 0.844), indicating that the effective stimulus intensity remained stable.

Optimal pulse train for LFD estimation in participants with SCI

The correlation between the amount of depression elicited by the 11-pulse LFD train and by the abbreviated trains increased as the number of included pulses increased (Fig 2, Table 2). Increases in correlation corresponded with decreases in the mean difference between the amount of depression elicited by LFD and that elicited by the abbreviated trains. All abbreviated trains were significantly correlated with the 11-pulse LFD train (p ≤ 0.002). Relative to the depression elicited by the 11-pulse train, the shortest train eliciting depression with a high correlation was the 3-pulse train (H1 and 2 conditioning pulses; R(18) = 0.752, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.566, mean difference = 0.087). The shortest train eliciting depression with a very high correlation was the 5-pulse train (H1 and 4 conditioning pulses; R(18) = 0.905, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.818 mean difference = 0.037). The 2-pulse train (PPD) produced a response amplitude that had the greatest difference when compared to LFD (mean difference = 0.137). The values for all other abbreviated trains in relation to the 11-pulse train are outlined in Table 2.

Fig 2. Normalized H-reflex amplitudes for various abbreviated train lengths.

Fig 2

The displayed value on the primary (left) axis is an average of all denoted conditioned responses normalized to H1. Error bars represent standard deviation. The secondary (right) axis corresponds with the Pearson’s correlation value between the abbreviated train and the 11-pulse LFD train.

Table 2. Statistical values.
Abbreviated Train Length (number of stimuli) Mean Difference vs LFD 95% CI of Mean Difference vs LFD (LB, UB) Pearson Correlation Coefficient (R)
1 (Control) 0.532 0.228, 0.836 x
2 (PPD) 0.137 -0.099, 0.373 0.642
3 0.087 -0.116, 0.289 0.752
4 0.057 -0.116, 0.229 0.826
5 0.037 -0.092, 0.167 0.905
6 0.024 -0.076, 0.124 0.945
7 0.016 -0.059, 0.090 0.970
8 0.010 -0.041, 0.061 0.987
9 0.006 -0.027, 0.039 0.995
10 0.003 -0.014, 0.020 0.999

Values associated with the comparison of the reflex amplitude occurring with each abbreviated train (as a proportion of the control reflex) compared to LFD via the 11-pulse train. Mean differences calculated as the average normalized amplitude of conditioned H-reflexes subtracted from that of LFD. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LB, lower bound; UB, upper bound

Discussion

LFD protocols are commonly utilized to assess spinal reflex excitability [16, 17], and are of great value for assessing changes in excitability associated with neuromodulation interventions. This study explored the relationship between the amount of H-reflex depression elicited by the typical 11-pulse LFD protocol, that elicited by PPD, and by pulse trains consisting of 3–10 pulses in persons with incomplete SCI. Depression elicited by all abbreviated trains was less than that elicited by LFD, however the depression elicited by all abbreviated trains were significantly correlated with that of LFD. As the number of included pulses increased, the mean difference between the amount of depression elicited by the abbreviated trains and the 11-pulse LFD train decreased (Table 2), with the greatest difference occurring with only one conditioned response.

Our findings are consistent with the prior work demonstrating that there is a cumulative decrease in the H-reflex with greater numbers of conditioning stimuli [22]. When compared to the 11-pulse LFD train, the depression elicited by the 5-pulse and 3-pulse trains were comparable, resulting in only slightly less depression (3.7% and 8.7%, respectively). The 5-pulse train was the shortest abbreviated train for which a very high correlation was identified, while the 3-pulse train had a high correlation. While Pearson correlation coefficients do not gauge whether sets of data are equivalent, they do offer a method of assessing the strength and direction of the relationships [23]. Based on these findings, the use of a 5-pulse LFD train offers insights about the amount of neuromodulation that is similar to that of the more common 11-pulse train.

Our findings are in contrast to prior research on neurologically intact participants, wherein the depression elicited by the PPD and LFD approaches with a 1-second interstimulus interval were found not to be statistically different, making PPD an appropriate substitute for multi-pulse LFD trains [17]. These results are likely attributable to impairment of reflex modulation in our participants, which is common in persons with SCI. Previous literature demonstrates that persons with SCI exhibit significantly less H-reflex depression than their neurologically intact counterparts [16]. Despite impairment of reflex modulation in persons with SCI, as with neurologically intact individuals, the greatest amount of depression occurred with the first conditioning pulse [17] (Table 2). The data from the current study suggests that, in persons with SCI, a larger number of pulses is required to elicit maximal reflex depression in comparison to individuals who are neurologically intact. In contrast, people who are neurologically intact demonstrate reflex depression that does not significantly change with repeated conditioning stimuli [17, 24].

As neuromodulation approaches to influence neural excitability become more broadly used, efficient and valid methods to assess their effects are increasingly important. The use of an abbreviated train of pulses to investigate neurologic modulability could alleviate some of the challenges inherent to electrophysiologic testing in persons with neurologic impairment. When collecting these data, participants are often required to sit/lie in one position remaining as still as possible. This can be challenging for people with SCI as muscle spasms or spasticity can cause involuntary movement [25] that can produce erroneous data or preclude their inclusion. Additionally, shorter pulse trains could cause less discomfort with stimulation, limiting the variations in descending drive that occur when nociceptors are activated [17]. Limiting variability in the state of the nervous system is essential when assessing the reflexes of those with neuropathology as neuronal pathways are compromised and thus the maintenance of consistent supraspinal input is imperative to accurately eliciting and assessing reflex responses [17]. Further, prolonged testing may also result in outcomes that are confounded by differences in wakefulness [26]. Reducing the time necessary to acquire H-reflex modulation data would decrease participant and researcher burden, contribute to more comfortable and efficient testing protocols, and improve quality of data. Based on the finding that a 5-pulse train offers similar insight on reflex modulation to the 11-pulse train, we recommend the use of a 5-pulse train opposed to longer multi-pulse trains.

Limitations

This study offers findings that are specific to people with incomplete SCI and, as a result, a limitation of this study is that the findings may not be generalizable to other neurologic populations. Additionally, the participants in this study had a wide range of injury severities and clinical presentations that may have contributed to inter-participant variability.

The application of these findings is limited to LFD protocols utilizing 1 Hz of stimulation as there are multiple physiological mechanisms operating at different timepoints believed to be contributing to alterations in reflex excitability [24]. Changing the interpulse interval could result in the evaluation of mechanisms where these findings may not apply.

Conclusions

Assessing spinal reflex excitability in persons with neurologic conditions is increasingly important for identifying optimal neuromodulation approaches. While abbreviated trains do not elicit the same magnitude of reflex depression observed with the 11-pulse LFD train in persons with incomplete SCI, an abbreviated, 5-pulse LFD protocol may offer insight similar to that obtained through longer LFD trains, while improving efficiency and reducing participant burden. We recommend the use of an abbreviated 5-pulse LFD train in lieu of longer, more time-consuming trains.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0300053.s001.xlsx (30.8KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants who volunteered their time to participate in the study. We also thank the following who made this study possible: Stephen Estes; Jennifer Iddings; Evan Sandler; Teresa Snow.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the NIH National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; https://www.nichd.nih.gov) R01HD079009 (E.C.F.-F.). Financial support was provided by the Jack and Dana McCallum Neurorehabilitation Training Fellowship (C.J.C.) during manuscript development. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Stein RB, Yang JF, Belanger M, Pearson KG. Modification of reflexes in normal and abnormal movements. Prog Brain Res. 1993;97:189–96. doi: 10.1016/s0079-6123(08)62277-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Angeli CA, Edgerton VR, Gerasimenko YP, Harkema SJ. Altering spinal cord excitability enables voluntary movements after chronic complete paralysis in humans. Brain. 2014;137(5):1394–409. doi: 10.1093/brain/awu038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hofstoetter US, Freundl B, Lackner P, Binder H. Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Enhances Walking Performance and Reduces Spasticity in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis. Brain Sciences. 2021;11(4). doi: 10.3390/brainsci11040472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sandler EB, Condon K, Field-Fote EC. Efficacy of Transcutaneous Spinal Stimulation versus Whole Body Vibration for Spasticity Reduction in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10(15). doi: 10.3390/jcm10153267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hofstoetter US, Freundl B, Danner SM, Krenn MJ, Mayr W, Binder H, et al. Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Induces Temporary Attenuation of Spasticity in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(3):481–93. doi: 10.1089/neu.2019.6588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Inanici F, Samejima S, Gad P, Edgerton VR, Hofstetter CP, Moritz CT. Transcutaneous Electrical Spinal Stimulation Promotes Long-Term Recovery of Upper Extremity Function in Chronic Tetraplegia. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2018;26(6):1272–8. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2834339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Estes S, Zarkou A, Hope JM, Suri C, Field-Fote EC. Combined Transcutaneous Spinal Stimulation and Locomotor Training to Improve Walking Function and Reduce Spasticity in Subacute Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized Study of Clinical Feasibility and Efficacy. J Clin Med. 2021;10(6). doi: 10.3390/jcm10061167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Burke D. Clinical uses of H reflexes of upper and lower limb muscles. Clinical Neurophysiology Practice. 2016;1:9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.cnp.2016.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hultborn H, Illert M, Nielsen J, Paul A, Ballegaard M, Wiese H. On the mechanism of the post-activation depression of the H-reflex in human subjects. Exp Brain Res. 1996;108(3):450–62. doi: 10.1007/BF00227268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tseng SC, Shields RK. Limb segment load inhibits post activation depression of soleus H-reflex in humans. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123(9):1836–45. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.02.068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liang JN, Lee YJ, Akoopie E, Kleven BC, Koch T, Ho KY. Impaired H-Reflex Adaptations Following Slope Walking in Individuals With Post-stroke Hemiparesis. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1232. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Koceja DM, Trimble MH, Earles DR. Inhibition of the soleus H-reflex in standing man. Brain Res. 1993;629(1):155–8. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(93)90495-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Earles DR, Morris HH, Peng CY, Koceja DM. Assessment of motoneuron excitability using recurrent inhibition and paired reflex depression protocols: a test of reliability. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;42(3):159–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ollivier-Lanvin K, Keeler BE, Siegfried R, Houle JD, Lemay MA. Proprioceptive neuropathy affects normalization of the H-reflex by exercise after spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol. 2010;221(1):198–205. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2009.10.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ishikawa K, Ott K, Porter RW, Stuart D. Low frequency depression of the H wave in normal and spinal man. Exp Neurol. 1966;15(1):140–56. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(66)90039-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schindler-Ivens S, Shields RK. Low frequency depression of H-reflexes in humans with acute and chronic spinal-cord injury. Exp Brain Res. 2000;133(2):233–41. doi: 10.1007/s002210000377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Oza PD, Dudley-Javoroski S, Shields RK. Modulation of H-Reflex Depression with Paired-Pulse Stimulation in Healthy Active Humans. Rehabil Res Pract. 2017;2017:5107097. doi: 10.1155/2017/5107097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kawaishi Y, Matsumoto N, Nishiwaki T, Hirano T. Postactivation depression of soleus H-reflex increase with recovery of lower extremities motor functions in patients with subacute stroke. The Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2017;29(9):1539–42. doi: 10.1589/jpts.29.1539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Grey MJ, Klinge K, Crone C, Lorentzen J, Biering-Sorensen F, Ravnborg M, et al. Post-activation depression of soleus stretch reflexes in healthy and spastic humans. Exp Brain Res. 2008;185(2):189–97. doi: 10.1007/s00221-007-1142-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crone C, Hultborn H, Mazieres L, Morin C, Nielsen J, Pierrot-Deseilligny E. Sensitivity of monosynaptic test reflexes to facilitation and inhibition as a function of the test reflex size: a study in man and the cat. Exp Brain Res. 1990;81(1):35–45. doi: 10.1007/BF00230098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2003. xxi, 756 p. p. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kohn AF, Floeter MK, Hallett M. Presynaptic inhibition compared with homosynaptic depression as an explanation for soleus H-reflex depression in humans. Exp Brain Res. 1997;116(2):375–80. doi: 10.1007/pl00005765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ozyurt MG, Topkara B, Senocak BS, Budan AS, Yuce MN, Turker KS. Post-activation depression of primary afferents reevaluated in humans. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2020;54:102460. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Field-Fote EC, Furbish CL, Tripp NE, Zanca JM, Dyson-Hudson T, Kirshblum S, et al. Characterizing the Experience of Spasticity after Spinal Cord Injury: A National Survey Project of the Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Centers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;103(4):764–72 e2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.03.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pivik RT, Mercier L. Motoneuronal excitability during wakefulness and non-REM sleep: H-reflex recovery function in man. Sleep. 1979;1(4):357–67. doi: 10.1093/sleep/1.4.357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alexander Rabchevsky

21 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-32555Optimizing Assessment of Neuromodulation in Persons with Spinal Cord InjuryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Creech,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alexander Rabchevsky, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The current study is on a topic of electrophysiological testing for spasticity in people with spinal cord injury. This topic is very important for collecting meaningful outcomes efficiently in clinical research. This study also highlights the understudied area in the methodological barriers of traditional testing. As a research paper, this manuscript is very well written. There is some critical information missing as I pointed out below. A minor revision by adding methodological details and discussion is recommended for considering publication in this journal.

Review comments:

Title: As the authors alluded throughout the manuscript, this result can be applied to only people with incomplete SCI and 1Hz stimulation. This study was not exactly assessing neuromodulation yet while it can be used in the future after further validation. The current title misleads audience. I recommend that the authors changes the title to “Optimizing Assessment of Low Frequency H-reflex Depression in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury.“

Page 5-6: Add how to determine which leg that received the stimulation and recording. I assume depending on dominant or more spasticity.

Page 7: the following sentence needs to be moved before the Page 6 last paragraph to define H1. “The H-reflex evoked by the first stimulus was considered the control reflex (H1). The 10 reflexes elicited following H1 were considered conditioned reflexes (H2, H3, etc.).”

Page 7: The authors might want to add more details of EMG analysis including bandpass filter, software they used, etc.

Page 8 line 140: The authors need to justify the following statement by references. Friedman test would be recommended based on the sample size.

“Despite this, we utilized the repeated measures ANOVA as it is robust against violations of normality.”

Page 6-7: There is no paired pulse depression study protocol was mentioned. It was implied later in the data analysis, but it has to be added following the LFD protocol.

Discussion

The authors may want to discuss or add limitations of grouping incomplete SCI. There are heterogeneity of spasticity and motoneuron function (peripheral nerve health, muscle health) which likely impact the results in this study participant group.

Paired pulse depression with shorter intervals (i.e., 60ms) can be used for a different physiology such as presynaptic inhibition, so that this 5 pulses rule may not be applicable. The authors need to address this in the discussion.

We do not know whether very high correlation indicates the sensitivity of 5 train LFD is enough to detect a therapeutic efficacy for spasticity in some other treatment such as spinal cord stimulation. The authors need to acknowledge the use of LFD and PPD as outcomes for other therapeutic modalities and discuss the study limitation about very specific 1Hz stimulation study design.

Reviewer #2: The authors present results from a sub-study of 20 individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury to compare H-reflex depression following various abbreviated trains to an 11-pulse train to see if a shorter evaluation could be utilized to study neuromodulation. Authors conclude that a 5-pulse train elicits similar results to the full 11-pulse train and recommend it for use. The manuscript will be strengthened if the authors consider the following points:

1. Authors should provide more detail about the repeated measures ANOVA that were used to assess M-Wave reliability. For example, were separate analyses performed for each individual across the pulses or were all individuals analyzed together? What factors were included?

2. Given the small sample size, Table 2 should include 95% confidence intervals for the Mean difference vs LFD and for the Pearson correlation coefficient. The R-squared column can be removed, since someone can easily compute that if they want.

3. To further provide evidence of the similarity between the 5-pulse train and the 11-pulse LFD, authors should add a scatter plot of the two measures, so that readers can see the distribution/spread of values.

Minor points:

1. line 82 - should "knees fully extended" be "legs fully extended"?

2. line 135: "The data was" should be "The data were"

3. lines 138-139, I'm guessing P40, P65, etc. refer to certain participant IDs, though that is not immediately clear. Authors should clarify that. Since these violate the assumption of normality, it might be worth including the H- and M- wave tracings for one of those participants in supplemental material for comparison with Figure 1.

Reviewer #3: This report examines the number of pulses that are optimal to evoke low-frequency depression in subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury. Whereas typically, 11 pulses are used, the authors suggest fewer pulses are almost as effective, ie. five as compared to 11. In addition, the authors compared two pulses in a paired-pulse paradigm with serial pulses.

It seems interesting to understand the variations between individual individuals and somewhat surprising that there would not be an individually optimized number of pulses.

While this data is quite convincing, it is a fairly simple technical observation, and its overall impacts on the field are not evident other than influencing people to explore shorter pulse trains. This may shorten sessions with research subjects and reduce the burden in H-reflex testing.

It may be helpful to indicate why some individuals have any evocable H- reflex, and others do not after spinal cord injury. For example, there is no apparent difference in the clinical parameters provided.

It's not clear in Figure 2 which variability measured is being shown- standard deviation versus standard error?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: James D Guest

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 14;19(5):e0300053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300053.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Feb 2024

We thank the reviewers for their time and appreciate their valuable comments. We have made a number of edits to the manuscript to reflect the input from the reviewers. Below, you will find responses to individual comments. Comments by the authors are included in italics.

________________________________________

Reviewer #1: The current study is on a topic of electrophysiological testing for spasticity in people with spinal cord injury. This topic is very important for collecting meaningful outcomes efficiently in clinical research. This study also highlights the understudied area in the methodological barriers of traditional testing. As a research paper, this manuscript is very well written. There is some critical information missing as I pointed out below. A minor revision by adding methodological details and discussion is recommended for considering publication in this journal.

Review comments:

Title: As the authors alluded throughout the manuscript, this result can be applied to only people with incomplete SCI and 1Hz stimulation. This study was not exactly assessing neuromodulation yet while it can be used in the future after further validation. The current title misleads audience. I recommend that the authors changes the title to “Optimizing Assessment of Low Frequency H-reflex Depression in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury.“

We concede to the reviewer’s request and have changed the title as requested to “Optimizing Assessment of Low Frequency H-Reflex Depression in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury.”

Page 5-6: Add how to determine which leg that received the stimulation and recording. I assume depending on dominant or more spasticity.

The reviewer is correct; we selected the tested leg based on participant self-report of the more spastic leg. This information has been added on page 5, lines 79-80, reading as follows;

“The more spastic leg as self-reported by participants was assessed during testing.”

Page 7: the following sentence needs to be moved before the Page 6 last paragraph to define H1. “The H-reflex evoked by the first stimulus was considered the control reflex (H1). The 10 reflexes elicited following H1 were considered conditioned reflexes (H2, H3, etc.).”

We appreciate this recommendation as the abbreviation “H1” is utilized before it was defined. The statement was moved to the paragraph at the top of page 7 (line 110) to define the abbreviated H-reflex nomenclature (I.e. H1, H2, etc).

Page 7: The authors might want to add more details of EMG analysis including bandpass filter, software they used, etc.

The requested information is included under the subtitle, “Electrophysiologic measurements” on page 5. No filtering was completed after the signal was collected before we measured the peak-to-peak amplitude. We have added the pre-amplification value of x20 (line 84).

Page 8 line 140: The authors need to justify the following statement by references. Friedman test would be recommended based on the sample size.

“Despite this, we utilized the repeated measures ANOVA as it is robust against violations of normality.”

We concede to the reviewer’s request, changing the reported analysis to the Friedman test. The new information can be found on page 8, line 135. The outcome of the analysis does not change (i.e. no significant differences were observed between M-waves).

Page 6-7: There is no paired pulse depression study protocol was mentioned. It was implied later in the data analysis, but it has to be added following the LFD protocol.

All data was collected using the methodology described for low-frequency depression, but the calculation methodology varied between assessments. For example, 11 pulse trains were always utilized, but only reflex amplitudes for the 1st and 2nd responses were utilized for the calculation of PPD. The same applies for the 3-11 pulse trains. This information is included on page 7, lines 120-125. We have added the following text early in the “Electrophysiologic measurement” section (lines 108-109):

“The data collected during this electrophysiologic testing was utilized for the calculation of LFD, PPD, and depression of abbreviated trains.”

Discussion

The authors may want to discuss or add limitations of grouping incomplete SCI. There are heterogeneity of spasticity and motoneuron function (peripheral nerve health, muscle health) which likely impact the results in this study participant group.

We agree that there is significant heterogeneity that can occur within our participant group that may influence outcomes, we have addressed this in the limitations section (page 14).

Paired pulse depression with shorter intervals (i.e., 60ms) can be used for a different physiology such as presynaptic inhibition, so that this 5 pulses rule may not be applicable. The authors need to address this in the discussion.

We have added a statement to the limitations of the study to acknowledge that any physiologic interpretations made with our data are limited to mechanisms that might be affected with a 1-second interpulse interval. The statement can be found on page 14 (lines 244-247) and reads as follows:

“The application of these findings is limited to LFD protocols utilizing 1 Hz of stimulation as there are multiple physiological mechanisms operating at different timepoints believed to be contributing to alterations in reflex excitability (24). Changing the interpulse interval could result in the evaluation of mechanisms where these findings may not apply.”

We do not know whether very high correlation indicates the sensitivity of 5 train LFD is enough to detect a therapeutic efficacy for spasticity in some other treatment such as spinal cord stimulation. The authors need to acknowledge the use of LFD and PPD as outcomes for other therapeutic modalities and discuss the study limitation about very specific 1Hz stimulation study design.

The utilization of low frequency depression of the H-reflex is primarily to assess only some of the mechanisms believed to be responsible for spasticity. Additionally, it is well-accepted that people with spinal cord injury have impaired depression of this reflex when assessed via low frequency depression (Schindler-Ivens S, Shields RK, Exp Brain Res, 2000). Alterations in H-reflex depression, however, may not correlate well with functional assessments of spasticity (Kohan, Acta Med Iran, 2010) so it is unclear how much reflex depression should be observed before therapeutic efficacy can be deduced. Through demonstrating a very strong correlation between the abbreviated 5-pulse train and 11-pulse train LFD, it can be concluded that the 5-pulse train results in data that enables similar conclusions to be made as with 11-pulse LFD, as there is a very strong correlation between the two.

We agree that there is value to more clarification in regard to the limitation of when this methodology can be applied. Above comments were integrated into the manuscript to clarify this important point- primarily referring to the 1Hz stimulation frequency. Within the manuscript we note that this technique could be used to assess neuromodulation intervention, but refer to transcutaneous spinal stimulation and epidural spinal stimulation as they are most prevalent in current research. In the introduction (page 3, line 25), we have edited the wording to clarify that this assessment technique can be used to assess neuromodulation following any therapeutic modality that may alter monosynaptic reflex excitability.

________________________________________

Reviewer #2: The authors present results from a sub-study of 20 individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury to compare H-reflex depression following various abbreviated trains to an 11-pulse train to see if a shorter evaluation could be utilized to study neuromodulation. Authors conclude that a 5-pulse train elicits similar results to the full 11-pulse train and recommend it for use. The manuscript will be strengthened if the authors consider the following points:

1. Authors should provide more detail about the repeated measures ANOVA that were used to assess M-Wave reliability. For example, were separate analyses performed for each individual across the pulses or were all individuals analyzed together? What factors were included?

Based on feedback from reviewers 1 and 2, we have changed our analysis of M-wave amplitude to a Friedman test. The analysis continues to assess the same variables and the results are the same. All participants were analyzed together at each elicited reflex to ensure that the average M-waves preceding each recorded H-reflex were not significantly different. M-Wave amplitudes recorded prior to each of the elicited reflexes in the LFD train were compared to ensure that similar motor units were being recruited during assessments.

The referenced statement was edited to read as follows (page 7, lines 134-136):

“To verify that the stimuli were recruiting similar numbers of motor neurons over the course of the conditioning train, a Friedman test was performed to assess the effect of number of elicited reflexes on M-wave amplitude.”

2. Given the small sample size, Table 2 should include 95% confidence intervals for the Mean difference vs LFD and for the Pearson correlation coefficient. The R-squared column can be removed, since someone can easily compute that if they want.

The 95% confidence interval has been added, as recommended.

3. To further provide evidence of the similarity between the 5-pulse train and the 11-pulse LFD, authors should add a scatter plot of the two measures, so that readers can see the distribution/spread of values.

Please see below the scatter plot recommended (image included in uploaded file). On the X-axis, normalized H-reflex amplitude by the traditional 11-pulse train (LFD) is included. On the Y axis, depression elicited by both the 2-pulse train (paired-pulse depression) and 5-pulse train (recommended) are included. We also included a line demonstrating a perfect correlation (1).

It does seem that the distribution/spread of these values decreases with our recommended train, however we believe that the provided correlation coefficients offer sufficient information to draw similar conclusions.

Minor points:

1. line 82 - should "knees fully extended" be "legs fully extended"?

Yes, thank you. Change made as recommended.

2. line 135: "The data was" should be "The data were"

Thank you. The corrected line was removed due to changes in the analysis utilized.

3. lines 138-139, I'm guessing P40, P65, etc. refer to certain participant IDs, though that is not immediately clear. Authors should clarify that. Since these violate the assumption of normality, it might be worth including the H- and M- wave tracings for one of those participants in supplemental material for comparison with Figure 1.

This is a valid recommendation. We removed the participant abbreviation (PXX) and replaced it with “participant xx” (all participant IDs are included in the demographics table).

Based on feedback provided by reviewers 1 and 2, we compared our M-waves with a Friedman test. The Friedman test does not require tests of normality to assess appropriateness, so these normality analyses were removed.

________________________________________

Reviewer #3: This report examines the number of pulses that are optimal to evoke low-frequency depression in subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury. Whereas typically, 11 pulses are used, the authors suggest fewer pulses are almost as effective, ie. five as compared to 11. In addition, the authors compared two pulses in a paired-pulse paradigm with serial pulses.

It seems interesting to understand the variations between individual individuals and somewhat surprising that there would not be an individually optimized number of pulses.

We very much agree that a personalized protocol would be the most accurate way of assessing neuromodulation via low frequency depression. Despite this, identifying the optimal number of pulses would still require investigators to collect 11 reflex responses to identify which abbreviated protocol best correlates for that person. The aim of this study was to identify a protocol that could be generalized to individuals within our population.

While this data is quite convincing, it is a fairly simple technical observation, and its overall impacts on the field are not evident other than influencing people to explore shorter pulse trains. This may shorten sessions with research subjects and reduce the burden in H-reflex testing.

While the observation is simple, a simple solution that reduces participant burden and improves data collection efficiency is of value to the field. As scientists, it is important that we continue to re-evaluate our methodologies to maximize efficiency without compromising data quality. It is possible that there are individuals in whom data may be compromised due to their individual response to the extended data collection periods of current methodologies. Beyond participant burden and researcher efficiency, a reduction in the time and stimuli requirement could decrease risk of changes in wakefulness and decrease risk of spastic response/muscle tone, resulting in improved data quality.

It may be helpful to indicate why some individuals have any evocable H- reflex, and others do not after spinal cord injury. For example, there is no apparent difference in the clinical parameters provided.

Within our study sample, we were able to evoke an H-reflex in every participant. An edit to clarify that elicited amplitudes needed to meet specific amplitude criteria was included under Materials and methods (page 5, lines 71-72). Some of our participants had a control H-reflex that fell outside the 10-30% range of the M-max that qualified the data to be analyzed. Many of the participants whose data did not meet our criteria for analysis produced H-reflexes that were close to threshold and inconsistent. While this could be an interesting topic of discussion, it is outside the scope of this paper.

It's not clear in Figure 2 which variability measured is being shown- standard deviation versus standard error?

Thank you for this valuable observation. They are standard deviation values. This information has been added to the figure description for improved clarity.

Attachment

Submitted filename: LFD_ReviewerComments_R1_2Feb24.docx

pone.0300053.s002.docx (57.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Alexander Rabchevsky

21 Feb 2024

Optimizing assessment of low frequency H-reflex depression in persons with spinal cord injury

PONE-D-23-32555R1

Dear Dr. Creech,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. We thank you for your replies to the reviewers and addition of requested documentation to highlight the importance of your findings.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alexander Rabchevsky, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Alexander Rabchevsky

30 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-32555R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Creech,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alexander Rabchevsky

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    pone.0300053.s001.xlsx (30.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: LFD_ReviewerComments_R1_2Feb24.docx

    pone.0300053.s002.docx (57.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES