Mid-Lumbar Segments Are Needed for the Expression of Locomotion in Chronic Spinal Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In acute experiments performed in decerebrated and spinalized (T13) cats, an intraspinal injection of clonidine, a noradrenergic agonist, restricted to mid-lumbar segments L3-L4, can induce hindlimb locomotion, whereas yohimbine, a noradrenergic antagonist, can block spinal locomotion, and a second spinal lesion at L4 can abolish all locomotor activity. In the present study, we investigated whether the abolition of locomotion after this second spinal lesion was due to an acute spinal shock or to the functional disconnection of the rostral and caudal lumbar segments. In seven cats, first spinalized at T13 and having recovered treadmill locomotion, a second transection was performed at lower lumbar levels. Video and electromyographic recordings were used to evaluate locomotor performance. Results show that after a second transection at L2 or rostral L3 levels, spinal locomotion was maintained; when the second lesion was performed at caudal L3 or L4, all locomotor activity was abolished even after several weeks of attempted locomotor training; vigorous fast paw shakes (FPS) were observed in all cases; and after an intraperitoneal injection of clonidine in cats with a second transection below L4, perineal stimulation induced hyperextension of the hindlimbs but no locomotion. Considering that the main motoneuron pools of the hindlimbs are caudal to L4 and are still functional after the second spinal transection, as evidenced by the presence of FPS, we conclude that the mid-lumbar spinal segments are essential for the specific expression of spinal locomotion but not necessarily for other rhythmic motor patterns.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".