Interactions between rostral and caudal cortical motor areas in the rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rats, forelimb movements can be evoked from two distinct cortical regions, the rostral (RFA) and the caudal (CFA) forelimb areas. RFA and CFA have numerous reciprocal connections, and their projections reach several common targets, which allows them to interact at multiple levels of the motor axis. Lesions affecting these areas result in profound and persistent deficits, supporting their essential role for the production of arm and hand movements. Whereas rats are widely used to study motor control and recovery following lesions, little is known as to how cortical motor areas in this model interact to generate movements. To study interactions between RFA and CFA, we used paired-pulse protocols with intracortical microstimulation techniques (ICMS). A conditioning stimulus (C) in RFA was applied simultaneously, or before a test stimulus (T) in CFA. The impact of RFA conditioning on CFA outputs was quantified by recording electromyographic signals (EMG) signals from the contralateral arm muscles. We found that stimulation of RFA substantially modulates the intensity of CFA outputs while only mildly affecting the latency. In general, the effect of RFA conditioning changed from predominantly facilitatory to inhibitory with increasing delays between the C and the T stimulus. However, inspection of individual cortical sites revealed that RFA has a wide range of influence on CFA outputs with each interstimulation delay we used. Our results show that RFA has powerful and complex modulatory effects on CFA outputs that can allow it to play a major role in the cortical control of forelimb movements.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".