Nonlocomotor and Locomotor Hindlimb Responses Evoked by Electrical Microstimulation of the Lumbar Cord in Spinalized Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a preliminary step to using intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) for rehabilitation purposes, the distribution of various types of hindlimb responses evoked by ISMS in spinal cats (T(13)) is described. The responses to ISMS applied through a single electrode was assessed, before and after an intravenous injection of clonidine (noradrenergic agonist), using kinematics and electromyographic recordings in subacute (5-7 days, untrained) or chronic (3-5 wk trained on a treadmill) spinal cats. ISMS was applied in the dorsal, intermediate and ventral areas of segments L(3)-L(7), from midline to 3 mm laterally. Uni- and bilateral non-locomotor responses as well as rhythmical locomotor responses were evoked. In the subacute cats, ipsilateral flexion was elicited in the dorsal region of L(3)-L(7), whereas ipsilateral extension was evoked more ventrally and mainly in the caudal segments. Dorsal stimuli could induce ipsilateral flexion followed by ipsilateral extension. Sites inducing bilateral flexion and bilateral extension were similarly distributed to those evoking ipsilateral flexion and extension in the rostrocaudal axis but were evoked from more medial sites. Ipsilateral flexion with crossed extension was evoked from intermediate and ventral zones of all segments and lateralities. Unilateral ipsilateral locomotion was rarely observed. Contralateral locomotion was more frequent and mainly evoked medially, whereas bilateral locomotion was evoked exclusively from dorsal regions. With some exceptions, those distribution gradients were similar in the four conditions (subacute, chronic, pre- and postclonidine), but the proportion of each response could vary. The distribution of ISMS-evoked responses is discussed as a function of known localization of interneurons and motoneurons.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".