Cortical stimulation improves skilled forelimb use following a focal ischemic infarct in the rat
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
Improving functional recovery following cerebral strokes in humans will likely involve augmenting brain plasticity. This study examined skilled forelimb behavior, neocortical evoked potentials, and movement thresholds to assess cortical electrical stimulation concurrent with rehabilitative forelimb usage following a focal ischemic insult. Adult rats were trained on a task that required skilled usage of both forelimbs. They then underwent an acute focal ischemic insult to the caudal forelimb area of sensorimotor cortex contralateral to their preferred forelimb. During the same procedure, they also received a stimulation electrode over the infarct area and two depth electrodes anterior to the lesion to record evoked potentials. One week following the surgery, rats received cortical stimulation during performance of the skilled task. Evoked potentials and movement thresholds were also determined. Functional assessment revealed that cortical stimulation resulted in superior performance compared to the no stimulation group, and this was initially due to a shift in forelimb preference. Cortical stimulation also resulted in enhanced evoked potentials and a reduction in the amount of current required to elicit a movement, in a stimulation frequency dependent manner. This study suggests that cortical stimulation, concurrent with rehabilitative training, results in better forelimb usage that may be due to augmented synaptic plasticity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it