Bi‐hemispheric contribution to functional motor recovery of the affected forelimb following focal ischemic brain injury in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many recovering hemiparetic stroke patients, movement of the affected limb elicits ipsilateral activation of sensorimotor areas within the undamaged hemisphere, which is not observed in control subjects. Following middle cerebral artery occlusion, rats received intensive enriched-rehabilitation (ER) of the impaired forelimb for 4 weeks. Weekly assessments on a skilled reaching test demonstrated significant improvement in ischemic animals over 4 weeks of ER (P < 0.05). We hypothesized that if the undamaged forelimb motor cortex contributed to improved forelimb function, then inhibition of neural activity within this region should reinstate (at least some of) the initial motor impairment. After 3 and 4 weeks of ER, animals received a microinjection of lidocaine hydrochloride into the undamaged motor cortex and were re-assessed on reaching ability. The behavioral effect of lidocaine challenge was dependent on the size of the infarct: animals with large infarcts were rendered unable to retrieve any food pellets and had great difficulty even contacting a pellet with the affected forepaw. Small-infarct animals were only moderately affected (25% reduction in success) by lidocaine, an effect similar to that observed in control animals. Qualitative assessments of recovered reaching after 4 weeks of rehabilitation revealed that impairments in forelimb lift, advance and aim were exacerbated (P < 0.05) following lidocaine-inactivation of the undamaged motor cortex of animals with large ischemic infarcts. In animals with small infarcts, lidocaine challenge only impaired limb advance. Thus, recruitment of the undamaged hemisphere may depend on the functional integrity of the remaining sensorimotor system. These data suggest that, in the rat, the undamaged (ipsilateral) motor system may contribute to compensatory recovery of the affected forelimb.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".