Somatosensory Gating and Recovery From Stroke Involving the Thalamus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the undamaged brain, sensory input to the cortex is intricately controlled via sensory gating mechanisms. Given the role of corticothalamic pathways in this control, it was hypothesized that in patients recovering from thalamic stroke there would be evidence of disrupted sensory gating and that efficient control of cortical sensory inputs would emerge during recovery. METHODS: Four patients were tested serially after stroke from 1 to 24 weeks after injury. Perceptual thresholds, somatosensory evoked potential amplitudes, and functional MRI activations under specific somatosensory stimulation conditions were measured. RESULTS: All patients demonstrated comparable results, revealing disrupted threshold detection to vibrotactile stimuli in the presence of a concurrent competing, contralateral input. In contrast, threshold detection was comparable between the affected and unaffected sides when there were no competing stimuli. This compromised capacity to inhibit competing sensory inputs was paralleled by a reduction in the measured activation of cortical representation in the stroke-affected hemisphere (functional MRI and somatosensory evoked potential) during bilateral stimulation. After recovery, perceptual detection improvements during bilateral stimulation were paralleled by enhancements of primary somatosensory cortical activation in the stroke-affected hemisphere. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide insight into potential mechanisms that contribute to sensory gating and suggest that the ability to control sensory input through effective gating mechanisms, in addition to primary somatosensory representation, may be important for poststroke sensory recovery.
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) | 0.001 | 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".