Targeted mini-strokes produce changes in interhemispheric sensory signal processing that are indicative of disinhibition within minutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most processing of sensation involves the cortical hemisphere opposite (contralateral) to the stimulated limb. Stroke patients can exhibit changes in the interhemispheric balance of sensory signal processing. It is unclear whether these changes are the result of poststroke rewiring and experience, or whether they could result from the immediate effect of circuit loss. We evaluated the effect of mini-strokes over short timescales (<2 h) where cortical rewiring is unlikely by monitoring sensory-evoked activity throughout much of both cortical hemispheres using voltage-sensitive dye imaging. Blockade of a single pial arteriole within the C57BL6J mouse forelimb somatosensory cortex reduced the response evoked by stimulation of the limb contralateral to the stroke. However, after stroke, the ipsilateral (uncrossed) forelimb response within the unaffected hemisphere was spared and became independent of the contralateral forelimb cortex. Within the unaffected hemisphere, mini-strokes in the opposite hemisphere significantly enhanced sensory responses produced by stimulation of either contralateral or ipsilateral pathways within 30-50 min of stroke onset. Stroke-induced enhancement of responses within the spared hemisphere was not reproduced by inhibition of either cortex or thalamus using pharmacological agents in nonischemic animals. I/LnJ acallosal mice showed similar rapid interhemispheric redistribution of sensory processing after stroke, suggesting that subcortical connections and not transcallosal projections were mediating the novel activation patterns. Thalamic inactivation before stroke prevented the bilateral rearrangement of sensory responses. These findings suggest that acute stroke, and not merely loss of activity, activates unique pathways that can rapidly redistribute function within the spared cortical hemisphere.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".