Afferent inputs to mid‐ and lower‐lumbar spinal segments are necessary for stepping in spinal cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afferent inputs are known to modulate the activity of locomotor central pattern generators, but their role in the generation of locomotor patterns remains uncertain. This study sought to investigate the importance of afferent input for producing bilateral, coordinated hindlimb stepping in adult cats. Following complete spinal transection, animals were trained to step on the moving belt of a treadmill until proficient, weight-bearing stepping of the hindlimbs was established. Selective dorsal rhizotomies of roots reaching various segments of the lumbosacral enlargement were then conducted, and hindlimb stepping capacity was reassessed. Depending on the deafferented lumbosacral segments, stepping was either abolished or unaffected. Deafferentation of mid-lumbar (L3/L4) or lower-lumbar (L5-S1) segments abolished locomotion. Locomotor capacity in these animals could not be restored with the administration of serotonergic or adrenergic agonists. Deafferentation of L3, L6, or S1 had mild effects on locomotion. This suggested that critical afferent inputs pertaining to hip position (mid-lumbar) and limb loading (lower-lumbar) play an important role in the generation of locomotor patterns 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".