Differential effects of plantar cutaneous afferent excitation on soleus stretch and H‐reflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that plantar cutaneous afferents can adjust motoneuron excitability, which may contribute significantly to the control of human posture and locomotion. However, the role of plantar cutaneous afferents in modulating the excitability of stretch and H-reflex with respect to the location of their excitation remains unclear. In the present study, it was hypothesized that electrical stimulation delivered to the sole of the foot might be followed by modulation of spinal excitability that depends on: (1) the stimulation location and (2) the reflex studied. In these experiments, conditioned and unconditioned stretch and H-reflexes were evoked in 16 healthy subjects in a seated position. Both reflexes were conditioned by non-noxious electrical plantar cutaneous afferent stimulation at two different sites, the heel and metatarsal regions, at four different conditioning-test (CT) intervals. The conditioning stimulation delivered to the heel caused a significant facilitation of the soleus stretch reflex for all CT intervals, whereas the soleus H-reflex had significant facilitation only at CT interval of 50 ms and significant inhibition at longer CT intervals. Stimulation delivered to the metatarsal region, however, resulted mainly in reduced stretch and H-reflex sizes. This study extends the reported findings on the contribution of plantar cutaneous afferents within spinal interneuron reflex circuits as a function of their location and the reflex studied.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".