Distributed Versus Focal Cortical Stimulation to Enhance Motor Function and Motor Map Plasticity in a Rodent Model of Ischemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor rehabilitation after cerebral ischemia can enhance motor performance and induce motor map reorganization. Electrical stimulation of the cortex (CS) during rehabilitative training (CS/RT) augments motor map plasticity and confers gains in motor function beyond those observed with motor rehabilitation alone. However, it is unclear how the distribution of electrical stimulation across the cortex accomplishes these changes. This study examined the behavioral and neurophysiological effects of delivering CS/RT through a distributed versus focal arrangement of electrical contacts. METHODS: Adult male rats were given rehabilitative training on a skilled forelimb reaching task following induction of focal ischemic damage within motor cortex. Intracortical microstimulation was used to derive high-resolution maps of forelimb movement representations within motor cortex contralateral to the trained/impaired paw before and after rehabilitation. RESULTS: All animals that received rehabilitation showed greater increases in motor map area and reaching accuracy than animals that received no training. Animals with the distributed configuration performed significantly greater reaching accuracy than animals in both the CS/RT with focused contact arrangement and rehabilitative training alone (RT) conditions on days 3 to 4 and on day 6 through the remainder of the study (P < .05). However, both CS/RT groups exhibited larger motor maps than the RT condition (E1-CS/RT, 4.71 ± 0.66 mm(2); E2-CS/RT, 4.64 ± 0.46 mm(2); RT, 2.99 ± 0.28 mm(2)). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that although both focal and distributed forms of CS/RT promote motor map reorganization only the distributed form of CS/RT enhances motor performance with rehabilitation.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".