Motor cortex stimulation enhances motor recovery and reduces peri-infarct dysfunction following ischemic insult
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery of motor function following stroke is believed to be supported, at least in part, by functional compensation involving residual neural tissue. The present study used a rodent model of focal ischemia and intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) to examine the behavioral and physiological effects of cortical stimulation in combination with motor rehabilitation. Adult rats were trained to criterion on a single pellet reaching task before ICMS was used to derive maps of movement representations within forelimb motor cortex contralateral to the trained paw. All animals then received a focal ischemic infarct within the motor map. A cortical surface electrode was implanted over the motor cortex. Low levels of electrical stimulation were applied during rehabilitative training on the same reaching task for 10 days and ICMS used to derive a second motor map. Results showed that both monopolar and bipolar cortical stimulation significantly enhanced motor recovery and increased the area of cortex from which microstimulation movements could be evoked. The results demonstrate the behavioral and neurophysiological benefits of cortical stimulation in combination with rehabilitation for recovery from stroke.
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) | 0.000 | 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".