Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the level of presynaptic inhibition during two rhythmic movements in the cat: locomotion and scratch. Dorsal rootlets from L6, L7, or S1 segments were cut, and their proximal stumps were recorded during fictive locomotion occurring spontaneously in decerebrate cats and during fictive scratch induced by d-tubocurarine applied on the C1 and C2 segments. Compared with rest, the number of antidromic spikes was increased (by 12%) during locomotion, whereas it was greatly decreased (31%) during scratch, and the amplitude of dorsal root potentials (DRPs), evoked by stimulating a muscle nerve, was slightly decreased (7%) during locomotion but much more so during scratch (53%). When compared with locomotion, the decrease in the number of antidromic spikes (45%) and the decrease in DRP amplitude (43%) during scratch were of similar magnitude. Also, the amplitude of primary afferent depolarization (PAD), recorded with micropipettes in axons (n = 13) of two cats, was found to be significantly reduced (60%) during scratch compared with rest. During both rhythms, there were cyclic oscillations in dorsal root potential the timing of which was linearly related to the timing of rhythmic activity in tibialis anterior. The amplitude of these oscillations was significantly smaller (34%) during locomotion compared with scratch. These results suggest that the reduction in antidromic activity during scratch was attributable to a task-dependent decrease in transmission in PAD pathways and not to underlying potential oscillations related to the central pattern generator. It is concluded that presynaptic inhibition and antidromic discharge may have a more important role in the control of locomotion than scratch.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".