Dual Spinal Lesion Paradigm in the Cat: Evolution of the Kinematic Locomotor Pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recovery of voluntary quadrupedal locomotion after an incomplete spinal cord injury can involve different levels of the CNS, including the spinal locomotor circuitry. The latter conclusion was reached using a dual spinal lesion paradigm in which a low thoracic partial spinal lesion is followed, several weeks later, by a complete spinal transection (i.e., spinalization). In this dual spinal lesion paradigm, cats can express hindlimb walking 1 day after spinalization, a process that normally takes several weeks, suggesting that the locomotor circuitry within the lumbosacral spinal cord had been modified after the partial lesion. Here we detail the evolution of the kinematic locomotor pattern throughout the dual spinal lesion paradigm in five cats to gain further insight into putative neurophysiological mechanisms involved in locomotor recovery after a partial spinal lesion. All cats recovered voluntary quadrupedal locomotion with treadmill training (3-5 days/wk) over several weeks. After the partial lesion, the locomotor pattern was characterized by several left/right asymmetries in various kinematic parameters, such as homolateral and homologous interlimb coupling, cycle duration, and swing/stance durations. When no further locomotor improvement was observed, cats were spinalized. After spinalization, the hindlimb locomotor pattern rapidly reappeared, but left/right asymmetries in swing/stance durations observed after the partial lesion could disappear or reverse. It is concluded that, after a partial spinal lesion, the hindlimb locomotor pattern was actively maintained by new dynamic interactions between spinal and supraspinal levels but also by intrinsic changes within the spinal cord.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".