Evidence for Specialized Rhythm-Generating Mechanisms in the Adult Mammalian Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locomotion and scratch are characterized by alternation of flexion and extension phases within one hindlimb, which are mediated by rhythm-generating circuitry within the spinal cord. By definition, the rhythm generator controls cycle period, phase durations, and phase transitions. The aim was to determine whether rhythm-generating mechanisms for locomotion and scratch are similar in adult decerebrate cats. The regulation of cycle period during fictive scratching was evaluated, as were the effects of specific sensory inputs on phase durations and transitions during spontaneous fictive locomotion and pinna-evoked fictive scratching. Results show that cycle period during fictive scratching varied predominantly with flexion phase duration, contrary to spontaneous fictive locomotion, where cycle period varied with extension phase duration. Ankle dorsiflexion greatly increased extension phase duration and cycle period during fictive locomotion but did not alter cycle period during scratching. Moreover, stimulating the plantaris (ankle extensor muscle) nerve during flexion reset the locomotor rhythm to extension but not the scratch rhythm. Stimulating the plantaris nerve during extension prolonged the extension phase and cycle period during fictive locomotion but not during fictive scratching. Stimulating the sartorius nerve (hip flexor muscle) during early flexion reduced the flexion phase and cycle period during fictive locomotion, but considerably prolonged the flexion phase and cycle period during fictive scratching. These data indicate that cycle period, phase durations, and phase transitions are not regulated similarly during fictive locomotion and scratching, with or without sensory inputs, providing evidence for specialized rhythm-generating mechanisms within the adult mammalian spinal cord.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".