Sensorimotor Cortical Plasticity During Recovery Following Spinal Cord Injury: A Longitudinal fMRI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the consequences of spinal cord injury (SCI) within the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system have been studied extensively, the influence of SCI on supraspinal structures during recovery remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To assess temporal changes in cortical sensorimotor representations beginning in the subacute phase following SCI and determine if an association exists between the plastic changes within cortical sensorimotor areas and recovery of movement postinjury. METHODS: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to study 6 SCI patients for 1 year, beginning shortly postinjury, and 10 healthy control individuals. During fMRI, individuals performed a simple self-paced wrist extension motor task. Recovery of movement was assessed using the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Standard Neurological Classification of SCI. RESULTS: In the subacute period post-SCI, during impaired movement, little task-related activation within the primary motor cortex (M1) was present, whereas activation in associated cortical sensorimotor areas was more extensive than in controls. During motor recovery, a progressive enlargement in the volume of movement-related M1 activation and decreased activation in associated cortical sensorimotor areas was seen. When movement was performed with little to no impairment, the overall pattern of cortical activation was similar to that observed in control individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first report of the temporal progression of cortical sensorimotor representational plasticity during recovery following traumatic SCI in humans and suggests an association between movement-related fMRI activation and motor recovery postinjury. These findings have implications on current and future rehabilitative interventions for patients with SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".