Movements elicited by electrical stimulation of muscles, nerves, intermediate spinal cord, and spinal roots in anesthetized and decerebrate cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical stimulation offers the possibility of restoring motor function of paralyzed limbs after spinal-cord injury or stroke, but few data are available to compare possible sites of stimulation, such as muscle, nerve, spinal roots, or spinal cord. The aim of this study was to establish some characteristics of stimulation at these sites in the anesthetized and midcollicular decerebrate cat. The hind limb was constrained to move in the sagittal plane against a spring load. Ventral-root stimulation only produced movements down and back; the direction moved systematically backward the more caudal the stimulated roots. In contrast, dorsal-root stimulation only produced movements up and forward. Thus, neither method alone could produce the full range of normal movements. Muscle, nerve, and intraspinal stimulation within the intermediate regions of the gray matter generated discrete, selective movements in a wide range of directions. Muscle stimulation required an order of magnitude more current. Single microwire electrodes located in the spinal gray matter could activate a synergistic group of muscles, and generally had graded recruitment curves, but the direction of movement occasionally changed abruptly as stimulus strength increased. Nerve stimulation produced the largest movements against the spring load (>80% of the passive range of motion) and was the most reproducible from animal to animal. However, recruitment curves with nerve stimulation were quite steep, so fine control of movement might be difficult. The muscle, nerve, and spinal cord all seem to be feasible sites to restore motor function. The pros and cons from this study may be helpful in deciding the best site for a particular application, but further tests are needed in the chronically transected spinal cord to assess the applicability of these results to human patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".