Intraspinal microstimulation preferentially recruits fatigue‐resistant muscle fibres and generates gradual force in rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS), a novel rehabilitative therapy consisting of stimulation through fine, hair-like microwires targeted at the ventral spinal cord, has been proposed for restoring standing and walking following spinal cord injury. This study compared muscle recruitment characteristics of ISMS with those produced by peripheral nerve cuff stimulation (NCS). Thirty-three minutes of either ISMS or NCS at 1, 20 or 50 s(-1) and 1.2 x threshold (T) amplitude depleted glycogen from muscle fibres of vastus lateralis and rectus femoris. ISMS and NCS were also carried out at 20 s(-1) and 3.0T. Muscle serial sections were stained for glycogen and for myosin heavy chain (MHC)-based fibre types using a panel of monoclonal antibodies. The results of this study show that ISMS recruited fatigue-resistant (FR) fibres at 2.9, 1.9, 1.7 and 2.5 times their relative MHC content at 1, 20 and 50 s(-1) 1.2T and 20 s(-1) 3.0T, respectively. In contrast, NCS recruited FR fibres at 1.2, 1.0, 2.1 and 0.0 times their MHC content at 1, 20 and 50 s(-1) 1.2T and 20 s(-1) 3.0T, respectively. The proportion of FR fibres recruited by ISMS and NCS was significantly different in the 20 s(-1) 3.0T condition (P < 0.0001). We also report that force recruitment curves were 4.9-fold less steep (P < 0.019) for ISMS than NCS. The findings of this study provide evidence for the efficacy of ISMS and further our understanding of muscle recruitment properties of this novel rehabilitative therapy.
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".