Contribution of the Motor Cortex to the Structure and the Timing of Hindlimb Locomotion in the Cat: A Microstimulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used microstimulation to examine the contribution of the motor cortex to the structure and timing of the hindlimb step cycle during locomotion in the intact cat. Stimulation was applied to the hindlimb representation of the motor cortex in 34 sites in three cats using either standard glass-insulated microelectrodes (16 sites in 1 cat) or chronically implanted microwire electrodes (18 sites in 2 cats). Stimulation at just suprathreshold intensities with the cat at rest produced multi-joint movements at a majority of sites (21/34, 62%) but evoked responses restricted to a single joint, normally the ankle, at the other 13/34 (38%) sites. Stimulation during locomotion generally evoked larger responses than the same stimulation at rest and frequently activated additional muscles. Stimulation at all 34 sites evoked phase-dependent responses in which stimulation in swing produced transient increases in activity in flexor muscles while stimulation during stance produced transient decreases in activity in extensors. Stimulation with long (200 ms) trains of stimuli in swing produced an increased level of activity and duration of flexor muscles without producing changes in cycle duration. In contrast, stimulation during stance decreased the duration of the extensor muscle activity and initiated a new and premature period of swing, resetting the step cycle. Stimulation of the pyramidal tract in two of these three cats as well as in two additional ones produced similar effects. The results show that the motor cortex is capable of influencing hindlimb activity during locomotion in a similar manner to that seen for the forelimb.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".