Modulation of the soleus H‐reflex following galvanic vestibular stimulation and cutaneous stimulation in prone human subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence to suggest that vestibular and somatosensory inputs may interact when they are processed by the central nervous system, although the nature of the individual sensory contributions to this interaction is unknown. We examined the effects of a combined vestibular and cutaneous conditioning stimulus on the motoneuron pool that supplies the soleus muscle via the Hoffman reflex (H-reflex). We applied galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS; bipolar, binaural, 500 ms, 2.5-mA square-wave pulse) and cutaneous stimulation (medial plantar nerve; 11 ms, three-pulse train, 200 HZ) to prone human subjects and examined changes in the amplitude of the H-reflex. GVS alone caused facilitation (approximately 20%) of the H-reflex, whereas ipsilateral cutaneous stimulation alone caused a 26% inhibition. Paired GVS and cutaneous stimulation resulted in a linear summation of the individual conditioning effects. H-reflex amplitudes observed after paired conditioning with GVS and cutaneous stimulation could be predicted from the amplitudes observed with individual conditioning. These results suggest that in the prone position, when the muscles are not posturally engaged, vestibular and somatosensory information appear to sum in a linear fashion to influence the reflex response of lower limb motoneurons. Muscle Nerve 40: 213-220, 2009.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".