Motor cortex stimulation enhances motor recovery and reduces peri-infarct dysfunction following ischemic insult
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it