Parallel reflex pathways from flexor muscle afferents evoking resetting and flexion enhancement during fictive locomotion and scratch in the cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflex actions of muscle afferents in hindlimb flexor nerves were examined on ipsilateral motoneurone activity recorded in peripheral nerves during midbrain stimulation-evoked fictive locomotion and during fictive scratch in decerebrate cats. Trains of stimuli (15-30 shocks at 200 Hz) were delivered during the flexion phase at intensities sufficient to activate both group I and II afferents (5 times threshold, T). In many preparations tibialis anterior (TA) nerve stimulation terminated ongoing flexion and reset the locomotor cycle to extension (19/31 experiments) while extensor digitorum longus (EDL) stimulation increased and prolonged the ongoing flexor phase activity (20/33 preparations). The effects of sartorius, iliopsoas and peroneus longus muscle afferent stimulation were qualitatively similar to those of EDL nerve. Resetting to extension was seen only with higher intensity stimulation (5T) while ongoing flexor activity was often enhanced at group I intensity (2T) stimulation. The effects of flexor nerve stimulation were qualitatively similar during fictive scratch. Reflex reversals were consistently observed in some fictive locomotor preparations. In those cases, EDL stimulation produced a resetting to extension and TA stimulation prolonged the ongoing flexion phase. Occasionally reflex reversals occurred spontaneously during only one of several stimulus presentations. The variable and opposite actions of flexor afferents on the locomotor step cycle indicate the existence of parallel spinal reflex pathways. A hypothetical organization of reflex pathways from flexor muscle afferents to the spinal pattern generator networks with competing actions of group I and group II afferents on the flexor and extensor portions of this central circuitry is proposed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".