Propriospinal transmission of the locomotor command signal in the neonatal rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long direct bulbospinal projections are known to convey descending activation of locomotor networks. Less is understood about the role, if any, of propriospinal mechanisms in this function. Here we review our recent studies on propriospinal neurons in the in vitro neonatal rat brainstem-spinal cord preparation. Neurochemical suppression of synaptic activity in the cervicothoracic spinal cord blocked locomotor-like activity, suggesting synaptic relays make a critical contribution to descending transmission of the locomotor signal. Staggered contralateral hemisections in the cervicothoracic region, intended to eliminate all long direct bulbospinal transmission, failed to suppress locomotion, suggesting the propriospinal system alone is sufficient. Midsagittal lesion experiments showed that locomotor-related commissural components are required for rhythm generation in response to electrical stimulation of the brainstem and are redundantly distributed. No single segment was essential, although a bi-directional gradient was noted, centered on the thoracolumbar junction. These results strongly favor a role for propriospinal mechanisms in the activation of locomotion and suggest that propriospinal neurons are a logical target for interventions to restore locomotor function after spinal cord injury.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".