arxiv: 2605.01767 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 🧬 q-bio.NC · eess.SP

Recognition: unknown

Electroencephalography and Electromyography as a Non-Invasive Biomarker of Neural Regeneration: A Review of Central and Peripheral Nervous System Injury and Regeneration

Chris Ullrich, Maryam Kheyrollah, Mohammad Moulaeifard, Reza Khanbabaie

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 16:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC eess.SP

keywords electroencephalographyelectromyographyneural regenerationbiomarkersCNS injuryPNS injuryneuroplasticityevoked potentials

0 comments

The pith

EEG and EMG can monitor neural regeneration non-invasively by tracking brain rhythms and muscle signals after central or peripheral injury.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that electroencephalography and electromyography provide practical, real-time indicators of nerve repair processes that structural methods often miss. It contrasts the limited spontaneous recovery in the central nervous system with the stronger regenerative potential in the peripheral system supported by Schwann cells. Specific EEG features such as shifts in oscillatory power, restored interhemispheric connectivity, and returning evoked potentials are presented as signs of cortical reorganization, while EMG signals directly reflect muscle reinnervation and motor reactivation. The central point is that these recordings link electrophysiological changes to neuroplasticity and observable clinical improvement, offering a way to follow regeneration dynamically across both systems.

Core claim

The paper states that EEG changes including global slowing reversal, coherence recovery, and somatosensory evoked potential restoration, together with EMG measures of muscle activation and reinnervation, function as biomarkers that capture both injury effects and subsequent neural regeneration in CNS and PNS contexts, thereby connecting electrophysiology to functional recovery.

What carries the argument

The dual-system perspective treating EEG (oscillatory power, connectivity, evoked potentials) and EMG (muscle activation patterns) as complementary non-invasive functional biomarkers that reflect regeneration and plasticity.

If this is right

In stroke or spinal cord injury, EEG can indicate recovery through return of higher-frequency activity and interhemispheric coherence as reorganization proceeds.
In peripheral nerve injuries, EEG detects cortical remapping while EMG tracks the timing and extent of reinnervation and restored motor output.
Combined EEG-EMG monitoring supplies a continuous functional readout that complements clinical observation and imaging.
These measures can evaluate whether therapeutic interventions are promoting regeneration by showing corresponding electrophysiological shifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Serial EEG-EMG recordings might allow clinicians to time interventions based on when biomarker recovery begins rather than fixed schedules.
The approach could be extended to test whether specific signal patterns predict which patients will benefit most from regenerative therapies.
Integration with behavioral assessments might reveal how tightly electrophysiological changes align with actual daily function gains.

Load-bearing premise

Changes observed in EEG rhythms, connectivity, and evoked responses plus EMG muscle signals are assumed to correspond directly to neural regeneration rather than to inflammation, compensation, or unrelated processes.

What would settle it

A study showing EEG or EMG normalization in patients without histological confirmation of nerve regrowth or measurable functional gains, or clear anatomical regeneration without corresponding EEG/EMG signal improvements.

read the original abstract

Regeneration of the nervous system after injury remains an important therapeutic objective, especially in the central nervous system (CNS), in which regeneration is restricted by both neuronal limitations as well as adverse extracellular environments. Conversely, the peripheral nervous system (PNS) displays enhanced regenerative capability in the presence of supportive Schwann cells (SC) and pro-growth stimuli. While the structure and molecular mechanisms are thoroughly understood, functional biomarkers that can non-invasively monitor regeneration in real time are limited. In this review, we discuss the promise of electroencephalography (EEG) as well as electromyography (EMG) as real-time, non-invasive biomarkers to monitor damage to nerves and regeneration in both CNS and PNS contexts. First, we contrast biological and electrophysiological indicators of CNS/PNS injury, showing how EEG signs, including oscillatory power, connectivity, and evoked potential changes, reflect dysfunction due to injury as well as neuroplastic reorganization. Also, EMG provides direct insight into muscle activation and peripheral output, providing useful EEG complementation in neuromuscular pathway integrity and reactivation. In CNS injuries (e.g., stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI)), EEG typically shows global slowing, disrupted interhemispheric coherence, and partial recovery of higher frequencies. For PNS injuries, EEG can capture cortical remapping and return of somatosensory evoked responses with re-establishment of the peripheries' connectivity. EMG, in turn, enables monitoring of reinnervation and restoration of functional motor output. This review presents a dual-system perspective, positioning EEG and EMG not only as diagnostic tools but also as functional biomarkers of neural regeneration, thereby bridging electrophysiology, plasticity, and clinical recovery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This review synthesizes existing EEG and EMG observations as potential biomarkers for neural regeneration in CNS and PNS injuries but adds no new data or mechanistic claims.

read the letter

This review collects literature on EEG and EMG changes following CNS and PNS injuries and positions those signals as functional biomarkers of neural regeneration. It doesn't introduce new findings or mechanisms. What it does well is bring the two systems together and walk through specific signal alterations, such as EEG oscillatory slowing and connectivity loss in stroke or SCI, with some recovery as function returns, and EMG for monitoring peripheral reinnervation. The idea of using them to track real-time, non-invasive progress is reasonable given the existing correlations. The paper handles the material coherently and uses appropriately cautious language about promise and potential. The main limitation is that it remains a descriptive summary. The central claim relies on observed associations rather than establishing that these changes specifically indicate regeneration over other factors like inflammation or compensation. Without a deeper critical review of the evidence strength or gaps in the field, it doesn't resolve much. Citation pattern seems standard for a review, but the value hinges on how comprehensively it covers the literature. This is for readers wanting an accessible overview of electrophysiological monitoring in regeneration contexts, like neurologists or rehab specialists. It could be worth a referee's time at an appropriate journal, as the synthesis is organized and the topic has clinical relevance.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review synthesizing literature on EEG and EMG as non-invasive biomarkers for neural regeneration after CNS (e.g., stroke, SCI) and PNS injuries. It contrasts biological versus electrophysiological indicators, describes EEG changes such as oscillatory power, connectivity, evoked potentials, and global slowing with partial recovery, and EMG measures of muscle activation and reinnervation; it positions these signals as functional biomarkers bridging electrophysiology, plasticity, and clinical recovery.

Significance. If the reviewed correlations are robust, the dual-system perspective offers a useful framework for real-time monitoring of regeneration that could complement invasive biological markers and guide therapeutic interventions in both CNS and PNS contexts.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central positioning of EEG/EMG changes as direct functional biomarkers of regeneration is load-bearing but rests on the assumption that observed signal alterations (oscillatory power, connectivity, reinnervation patterns) correspond to regeneration rather than confounders such as inflammation or compensatory plasticity; the review should explicitly address contradictory or null findings from the cited literature to support this claim.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and review would benefit from a summary table comparing key EEG and EMG metrics across CNS versus PNS injury types and recovery stages to improve clarity and allow direct comparison.
Some descriptive passages on signal changes are lengthy; breaking them into shorter sentences or bullet points would enhance readability without altering content.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive suggestion regarding the abstract. We agree that strengthening the abstract to acknowledge potential confounders and varying findings in the literature will improve clarity and balance.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central positioning of EEG/EMG changes as direct functional biomarkers of regeneration is load-bearing but rests on the assumption that observed signal alterations (oscillatory power, connectivity, reinnervation patterns) correspond to regeneration rather than confounders such as inflammation or compensatory plasticity; the review should explicitly address contradictory or null findings from the cited literature to support this claim.

Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this point. The abstract summarizes the review's central thesis but does not explicitly flag that signal changes may arise from non-regenerative factors or that some cited studies report null or contradictory results. In the revised version, we will update the abstract with a concise clause noting that EEG/EMG alterations can reflect regeneration, inflammation, or compensatory plasticity, and that the review incorporates literature with both supportive and null findings. This revision maintains the manuscript's scope while addressing the concern directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: descriptive review without derivations

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature review synthesizing published correlations between EEG/EMG signals and neural injury/regeneration. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations that could reduce to their own inputs. The positioning of EEG/EMG as biomarkers is presented as a perspective on existing empirical patterns rather than a self-derived result, with explicit qualifiers such as 'promise' and 'potential'. No self-citation chains or ansatzes are load-bearing for any central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters, axioms beyond standard neuroscience, or invented entities; it builds on established electrophysiological principles.

axioms (2)

domain assumption EEG measures brain electrical activity and reflects functional states like injury and plasticity
This is the foundational assumption for using EEG as a biomarker, invoked in the discussion of oscillatory power and connectivity changes.
domain assumption EMG measures muscle electrical activity and indicates peripheral nerve integrity and reinnervation
Basis for EMG's role in monitoring motor output restoration.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5633 in / 1389 out tokens · 57741 ms · 2026-05-09T16:14:09.370249+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references

[1]

Cooke, H

P. Cooke, H. Janowitz, and S. E. Dougherty. Neuronal redevelopment and the regeneration of neuromodulatory axons in the adult mammalian central nervous system.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 16:872501, 2022

2022
[2]

R. R. Shigapova and Y. O. Mukhamedshina. Electrophysiology methods for assess- ing of neurodegenerative and post-traumatic processes as applied to translational research.Life, 14:737, 2024

2024
[3]

Simis, D

M. Simis, D. Doruk Camsari, M. Imamura, T. R. M. Filippo, D. Rubio De Souza, L. R. Battistella, and F. Fregni. Electroencephalography as a biomarker for func- tional recovery in spinal cord injury patients.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15:548558, 2021

2021
[4]

Delcamp, R

C. Delcamp, R. Srinivasan, and S. C. Cramer. Eeg provides insights into motor control and neuroplasticity during stroke recovery.Stroke, 55:2579–2583, 2024

2024
[5]

C. A. Bareham, J. Allanson, N. Roberts, P. J. Hutchinson, J. D. Pickard, D. K. Menon, and S. Chennu. Longitudinal bedside assessments of brain networks in disorders of consciousness: case reports from the field.Frontiers in neurology, 9:676, 2018

2018
[6]

J. Sun, B. Wang, Y. Niu, Y. Tan, C. Fan, N. Zhang, J. Xue, J. Wei, and J. Xi- ang. Complexity analysis of eeg, meg, and fmri in mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer’s disease: a review.Entropy, 22:239, 2020

2020
[7]

Available online

Peripheral nerve injury & repair - hand - orthobullets. Available online
[8]

L. Lam, C. Reeh, R. Copeland, G. Yan, C. Richards, and E. N. Husu. Peripheral neurological recovery and regeneration.PM&R, 2024

2024
[9]

Preservation of functional descending input to paralyzed upper extremity muscles in motor complete cervical spinal cord injury.Clinical Neurophysiology, 150:56–68, 2023

P.Sharma, A.Naglah, S.Aslan, F.Khalifa, A.El-Baz, S.Harkema, andJ.D’Amico. Preservation of functional descending input to paralyzed upper extremity muscles in motor complete cervical spinal cord injury.Clinical Neurophysiology, 150:56–68, 2023

2023
[10]

Pilkar, K

R. Pilkar, K. Momeni, A. Ramanujam, M. Ravi, E. Garbarini, and G. F. Forrest. Use of surface emg in clinical rehabilitation of individuals with sci: barriers and future considerations.Frontiers in neurology, 11:578559, 2020

2020
[11]

Balbinot

G. Balbinot. Surface emg in subacute and chronic care after traumatic spinal cord injuries.Trauma Care, 2:381–391, 2022

2022
[12]

R.Li, Z.-C.Huang, H.-Y.Cui, Z.-P.Huang, J.-H.Liu, Q.-A.Zhu, andY.Hu. Utility of somatosensory and motor-evoked potentials in reflecting gross and fine motor functions after unilateral cervical spinal cord contusion injury.Neural regeneration research, 16:1323–1330, 2021

2021
[13]

Silver and J

J. Silver and J. H. Miller. Regeneration beyond the glial scar.Nature reviews neuroscience, 5:146–156, 2004. 18

2004
[14]

S. G. Varadarajan, J. L. Hunyara, N. R. Hamilton, A. L. Kolodkin, and A. D. Huberman. Central nervous system regeneration.Cell, 185:77–94, 2022

2022
[15]

Brosius Lutz, W.-S

A. Brosius Lutz, W.-S. Chung, S. A. Sloan, G. A. Carson, L. Zhou, E. Lovelett, S. Posada, J. B. Zuchero, and B. A. Barres. Schwann cells use tam receptor- mediated phagocytosis in addition to autophagy to clear myelin in a mouse model of nerve injury.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 2017

2017
[16]

Deumens, A

R. Deumens, A. Bozkurt, M. F. Meek, M. A. Marcus, E. A. Joosten, J. Weis, and G. A. Brook. Repairing injured peripheral nerves: bridging the gap.Progress in neurobiology, 92:245–276, 2010

2010
[17]

D. E. Pleasure. Regeneration in the central and peripheral nervous systems.Basic Neurochemistry: Molecular, Cellular and Medical Aspects, 6, 1999

1999
[18]

D. P. Kuffler and C. Foy. Restoration of neurological function following peripheral nerve trauma.International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21:1808, 2020

2020
[19]

Rayi and N

A. Rayi and N. Murr. Electroencephalogram. 2020

2020
[20]

J. Feng, W. Jia, and Z. Li. Electroencephalography: A valuable tool for assessing motor impairment and recovery post-stroke.Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 422:110518, 2025

2025
[21]

Brambilla, I

C. Brambilla, I. Pirovano, R. M. Mira, G. Rizzo, A. Scano, and A. Mastropietro. Combineduseofemgandeegtechniquesforneuromotorassessmentinrehabilitative applications: A systematic review.Sensors, 21:7014, 2021

2021
[22]

E. A. Huebner and S. M. Strittmatter. Axon regeneration in the peripheral and central nervous systems.Cell Biology of the Axon, 48:305–360, 2009

2009
[23]

Shafqat, I

A. Shafqat, I. Albalkhi, H. M. Magableh, T. Saleh, K. Alkattan, and A. Yaqinud- din. Tackling the glial scar in spinal cord regeneration: new discoveries and future directions.Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 17:1180825, 2023

2023
[24]

S. S. Chambel and C. D. Cruz. Axonal growth inhibitors and their receptors in spinal cord injury: from biology to clinical translation.Neural Regeneration Re- search, 18:2573–2581, 2023

2023
[25]

McKerracher and K

L. McKerracher and K. M. Rosen. Mag, myelin and overcoming growth inhibition in the cns.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience, 8:51, 2015

2015
[26]

K. L. Fink and W. B. Cafferty. Reorganization of intact descending motor circuits to replace lost connections after injury.Neurotherapeutics, 13:370–381, 2016

2016
[27]

C. E. Kvistad, T. Kråkenes, S. Gavasso, and L. Bø. Neural regeneration in the hu- mancentralnervoussystem—fromunderstandingtheunderlyingmechanismstode- veloping treatments. where do we stand today?Frontiers in Neurology, 15:1398089, 2024

2024
[28]

Stoll and H

G. Stoll and H. W. Müller. Nerve injury, axonal degeneration and neural regener- ation: Basic insights.Brain Pathology, 9:313–325, 1999. 19

1999
[29]

K. V. Panzer, J. C. Burrell, K. V. Helm, E. M. Purvis, Q. Zhang, A. D. Le, J. C. O’Donnell, and D. K. Cullen. Tissue engineered bands of büngner for accelerated motor and sensory axonal outgrowth.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnol- ogy, 8:580654, 2020

2020
[30]

A. D. Gaudet, P. G. Popovich, and M. S. Ramer. Wallerian degeneration: gain- ing perspective on inflammatory events after peripheral nerve injury.Journal of Neuroinflammation, 8:110, 2011

2011
[31]

Y. Fu, X. Rui, S. Zhu, C. Guo, H. Li, Z. Pan, X. Wu, and W. He. Research status of regenerative difficulties after central nervous system injury.Regenerative Therapy, 29:493–498, 2025

2025
[32]

Balakrishnan, L

A. Balakrishnan, L. Belfiore, T.-H. Chu, T. Fleming, R. Midha, J. Biernaskie, and C. Schuurmans. Insights into the role and potential of schwann cells for periph- eral nerve repair from studies of development and injury.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience, 13:608442, 2021

2021
[33]

M. E. Filipp, B. J. Travis, S. S. Henry, E. C. Idzikowski, S. A. Magnuson, M. Y. Loh, D. J. Hellenbrand, and A. S. Hanna. Differences in neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury in varying animal models and humans.Neural regeneration research, 14:7–19, 2019

2019
[34]

Restoringafter central nervous system injuries: Neural mechanisms and translational applications of motor recovery.Neuroscience Bulletin, 38:1569–1587, 2022

Z.Gao, Z.Pang, Y.Chen, G.Lei, S.Zhu, G.Li, Y.Shen, andW.Xu. Restoringafter central nervous system injuries: Neural mechanisms and translational applications of motor recovery.Neuroscience Bulletin, 38:1569–1587, 2022

2022
[35]

G. J. Lacerda, L. Camargo, M. Imamura, L. M. Marques, L. Battistella, and F. Fregni. Eeg oscillations as neuroplastic markers of neural compensation in spinal cord injury rehabilitation: The role of slow-frequency bands.Brain Sciences, 14:1229, 2024

2024
[36]

H. Li, G. Huang, Q. Lin, J. Zhao, Q. Fu, L. Li, Y. Mao, X. Wei, W. Yang, and B. Wang. Eeg changes in time and time-frequency domain during movement prepa- ration and execution in stroke patients.Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14:827, 2020

2020
[37]

Krauth, J

R. Krauth, J. Schwertner, S. Vogt, S. Lindquist, M. Sailer, A. Sickert, J. Lamprecht, S. Perdikis, T. Corbet, and J. del R. Millán. Cortico-muscular coherence is reduced acutely post-stroke and increases bilaterally during motor recovery: a pilot study. Frontiers in neurology, 10:126, 2019

2019
[38]

Denervationactivityintheemgofpatients with upper motor neuron lesions: time course, local distribution and pathogenetic aspects.Journal of Neurology, 230:143–151, 1983

R.Benecke, A.Berthold, andB.Conrad. Denervationactivityintheemgofpatients with upper motor neuron lesions: time course, local distribution and pathogenetic aspects.Journal of Neurology, 230:143–151, 1983

1983
[39]

L. R. Robinson. Traumatic injury to peripheral nerves.Muscle & Nerve, 66:661– 670, 2022

2022
[40]

Heald, R

E. Heald, R. Hart, K. Kilgore, and P. H. Peckham. Characterization of volitional electromyographic signals in the lower extremity after motor complete spinal cord injury.Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 31:583–591, 2017. 20

2017
[41]

Sangari, H

S. Sangari, H. Lundell, S. Kirshblum, and M. A. Perez. Residual descending motor pathways influence spasticity after spinal cord injury.Annals of Neurology, 86:28– 41, 2019

2019
[42]

A. J. Santamaria, F. D. Benavides, P. M. Saraiva, K. D. Anderson, A. Khan, A. D. Levi, W. D. Dietrich, and J. D. Guest. Neurophysiological changes in the first year after cell transplantation in sub-acute complete paraplegia.Frontiers in neurology, 11:514181, 2021

2021
[43]

Sheng, S

W. Sheng, S. Li, J. Zhao, Y. Wang, Z. Luo, W. L. A. Lo, M. Ding, C. Wang, and L. Li. Upper limbs muscle co-contraction changes correlated with the impairment of the corticospinal tract in stroke survivors: preliminary evidence from electromyo- graphy and motor-evoked potential.Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16:886909, 2022

2022
[44]

M. I. B. Debenham, C. K. Franz, and M. J. Berger. Neuromuscular consequences of spinal cord injury: New mechanistic insights and clinical considerations.Muscle & Nerve, 70:12–27, 2024

2024
[45]

C. R. Carvalho, J. M. Oliveira, and R. L. Reis. Modern trends for peripheral nerve repair and regeneration: beyond the hollow nerve guidance conduit.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 7:337, 2019

2019
[46]

Sulaiman and T

W. Sulaiman and T. Gordon. Neurobiology of peripheral nerve injury, regeneration, and functional recovery: from bench top research to bedside application.Ochsner Journal, 13:100–108, 2013

2013
[47]

Rotshenker

S. Rotshenker. Wallerian degeneration: the innate-immune response to traumatic nerve injury.Journal of Neuroinflammation, 8:109, 2011

2011
[48]

N. M. Nevmerzhytska, L. M. Yaremenko, and O. M. Grabovyi. Review of fun- damental and modern concepts of peripheral nerve regeneration.Neurophysiology, 2025

2025
[49]

Q. T. Nguyen, J. R. Sanes, and J. W. Lichtman. Pre-existing pathways promote precise projection patterns.Nature neuroscience, 5:861–867, 2002

2002
[50]

Huang, J

X. Huang, J. Jiang, and J. Xu. Denervation-related neuromuscular junction changes: From degeneration to regeneration.Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, 14:810919, 2022

2022
[51]

B. M. Carlson. The biology of long-term denervated skeletal muscle.European journal of translational myology, 24:3293, 2014

2014
[52]

Grinsell and C

D. Grinsell and C. P. Keating. Peripheral nerve reconstruction after injury: A re- view of clinical and experimental therapies.BioMed Research International, 2014:1– 13, 2014

2014
[53]

T. Gordon. Peripheral nerve regeneration and muscle reinnervation.International journal of molecular sciences, 21:8652, 2020

2020
[54]

V. M. Synek. Role of somatosensory evoked potentials in the diagnosis of peripheral nerve lesions: recent advances.Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 4:55–74, 1987. 21

1987
[55]

A. Eisen. The use of somatosensory evoked potentials for the evaluation of the peripheral nervous system.Neurologic clinics, 6:825–838, 1988

1988
[56]

Amini, F

A. Amini, F. P. S. Fischmeister, E. Matt, R. Schmidhammer, F. Rattay, and R. Beisteiner. Peripheral nervous system reconstruction reroutes cortical motor output—brain reorganization uncovered by effective connectivity.Frontiers in Neu- rology, 9:1116, 2018

2018
[57]

Li, S.-Y

C. Li, S.-Y. Liu, W. Pi, and P.-X. Zhang. Cortical plasticity and nerve regeneration after peripheral nerve injury.Neural Regeneration Research, 16:1518–1523, 2021

2021
[58]

Krarup, M

C. Krarup, M. Boeckstyns, A. Ibsen, M. Moldovan, and S. Archibald. Remodeling of motor units after nerve regeneration studied by quantitative electromyography. Clinical Neurophysiology, 127:1675–1682, 2016

2016
[59]

Chaney and M

B. Chaney and M. Nadi. Axonotmesis. 2020

2020
[60]

M. R. Ginsberg, J. A. Morren, and K. Levin. Using and interpreting electrodiag- nostic tests.Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 87:671–682, 2020

2020
[61]

Stålberg, H

E. Stålberg, H. van Dijk, B. Falck, J. Kimura, C. Neuwirth, M. Pitt, S. Podnar, D. I. Rubin, S. Rutkove, and D. B. Sanders. Standards for quantification of emg and neurography.Clinical Neurophysiology, 130:1688–1729, 2019

2019
[62]

Kamble, D

N. Kamble, D. Shukla, and D. Bhat. Peripheral nerve injuries: Electrophysiology for the neurosurgeon.Neurology India, 67:1419–1422, 2019

2019
[63]

D. C. Preston and B. E. Shapiro.Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders e-book: clinical-electrophysiologic correlations (Expert Consult-Online). 2012

2012
[64]

Kimura and J

J. Kimura and J. A. Strakowski.Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: principles and practice. 2025

2025
[65]

W. W. Campbell and R. N. DeJong.DeJong’s the neurologic examination. 2005

2005
[66]

Makeig, S

S. Makeig, S. Debener, J. Onton, and A. Delorme. Mining event-related brain dynamics.Trends in cognitive sciences, 8:204–210, 2004

2004
[67]

Farina, R

D. Farina, R. Merletti, and R. M. Enoka. The extraction of neural strategies from the surface emg: an update.Journal of Applied Physiology, 117:1215–1230, 2014

2014
[68]

B. C. van Wijk, P. J. Beek, and A. Daffertshofer. Neural synchrony within the motor system: what have we learned so far?Frontiers in human neuroscience, 6:252, 2012

2012
[69]

Mima and M

T. Mima and M. Hallett. Corticomuscular coherence: a review.Journal of clinical neurophysiology, 16:501, 1999

1999
[70]

Grosse, M

P. Grosse, M. J. Cassidy, and P. Brown. Eeg–emg, meg–emg and emg–emg fre- quency analysis: physiological principles and clinical applications.Clinical Neuro- physiology, 113:1523–1531, 2002

2002
[71]

Slowing and other non-epileptiform abnormalities, 2021. 22

2021
[72]

J. N. Ianof and R. Anghinah. Traumatic brain injury: An eeg point of view. Dementia & neuropsychologia, 11:3–5, 2017

2017
[73]

Peterson, N

W. Peterson, N. Ramakrishnan, D. Tinklepaugh, A. Hamburger, A. Kowell, K. Browder, N. Sanossian, P. Nguyen, and E. Fink. Exploring the feasibility of eeg for pre-hospital detection of medium and large vessel occlusion strokes: a proof-of- concept study.Frontiers in Neurology, 16:1509443, 2025

2025
[74]

Fanciullacci, F

C. Fanciullacci, F. Bertolucci, G. Lamola, A. Panarese, F. Artoni, S. Micera, B. Rossi, and C. Chisari. Delta power is higher and more symmetrical in ischemic stroke patients with cortical involvement.Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11:385, 2017

2017
[75]

Ajčević, G

M. Ajčević, G. Furlanis, A. Miladinović, A. Buoite Stella, P. Caruso, M. Ukmar, M. A. Cova, M. Naccarato, A. Accardo, and P. Manganotti. Early eeg alterations correlate with ctp hypoperfused volumes and neurological deficit: A wireless eeg study in hyper-acute ischemic stroke.Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 49:2150– 2158, 2021

2021
[76]

Sutcliffe, H

L. Sutcliffe, H. Lumley, L. Shaw, R. Francis, and C. I. Price. Surface electroen- cephalography (eeg) during the acute phase of stroke to assist with diagnosis and prediction of prognosis: a scoping review.BMC Emergency Medicine, 22:29, 2022

2022
[77]

Focal(nonepileptic)abnormalitiesoneeg: Overview, waveformdescriptions, clinical correlation, 2025

2025
[78]

C. Alia, C. Spalletti, S. Lai, A. Panarese, G. Lamola, F. Bertolucci, F. Vallone, A. Di Garbo, C. Chisari, and S. Micera. Neuroplastic changes following brain ischemia and their contribution to stroke recovery: novel approaches in neuroreha- bilitation.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 11:76, 2017

2017
[79]

J. J. Zhang, Z. Bai, and K. N. K. Fong. Resting-state cortical electroencephalogram rhythms and network in patients after chronic stroke.Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 21:32, 2024

2024
[80]

Doruk, I

D. Doruk, I. Moreno-Duarte, L. Morales-Quezada, and F. Fregni. Investigation of neural markers in chronic pain in spinal cord injury: a tms and eeg preliminary study and a brief systematic review.Principles and Practice of Clinical Research, 3, 2017

2017

Showing first 80 references.