Sensory Integration in Presynaptic Inhibitory Pathways During Fictive Locomotion in the Cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to understand how sensory inputs of different modalities are integrated into spinal cord pathways controlling presynaptic inhibition during locomotion. Primary afferent depolarization (PAD), an estimate of presynaptic inhibition, was recorded intra-axonally in group I afferents (n = 31) from seven hindlimb muscles in L(6)-S(1) segments during fictive locomotion in the decerebrate cat. PADs were evoked by stimulating alternatively low-threshold afferents from a flexor nerve, a cutaneous nerve and a combination of both. The fictive step cycle was divided in five bins and PADs were averaged in each bin and their amplitude compared. PADs evoked by muscle stimuli alone showed a significant phase-dependent modulation in 20/31 group I afferents. In 12/20 afferents, the cutaneous stimuli alone evoked a phase-dependent modulation of primary afferent hyperpolarization (PAH, n = 9) or of PADs (n = 3). Combining the two sensory modalities showed that cutaneous volleys could significantly modify the amplitude of PADs evoked by muscle stimuli in at least one part (bin) of the step cycle in 17/31 (55%) of group I afferents. The most common effect (13/17) was a decrease in the PAD amplitude by 35% on average, whereas it was increased by 17% on average in the others (4/17). Moreover, in 8/13 afferents, the PAD reduction was obtained in 4/5 bins i.e., for most of the duration of the step cycle. These effects were seen in group I afferents from all seven muscles. On the other hand, we found that different cutaneous nerves had quite different efficacy; the superficial peroneal (SP) being the most efficient (85% of trials) followed by Saphenous (60%) and caudal sural (44%) nerves. The results indicate that cutaneous interneurons may act, in part, by modulating the transmission in PAD pathways activated by group I muscle afferents. We conclude that cutaneous input, especially from the skin area on the dorsum of the paw (SP), could subtract presynaptic inhibition in some group I afferents during perturbations of stepping (e.g., hitting an obstacle) and could thus adjust the influence of proprioceptive feedback onto motoneuronal excitability.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".