MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293932855 · doi:10.1152/jn.00638.2015

A common neural element receiving rhythmic arm and leg activity as assessed by reflex modulation in arm muscles

2016· article· en· W2293932855 on OpenAlexaff
Syusaku Sasada, Toshiki Tazoe, Tsuyoshi Nakajima, Genki Futatsubashi, Hiroyuki Ohtsuka, Shinya Suzuki, E. Paul Zehr, Tomoyoshi Komiyama

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhythmReflexStretch reflexPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceH-reflexModulation (music)MedicineAnatomyPsychologyPhysicsInternal medicineAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural interactions between regulatory systems for rhythmic arm and leg movements are an intriguing issue in locomotor neuroscience. Amplitudes of early latency cutaneous reflexes (ELCRs) in stationary arm muscles are modulated during rhythmic leg or arm cycling but not during limb positioning or voluntary contraction. This suggests that interneurons mediating ELCRs to arm muscles integrate outputs from neural systems controlling rhythmic limb movements. Alternatively, outputs could be integrated at the motoneuron and/or supraspinal levels. We examined whether a separate effect on the ELCR pathways and cortico-motoneuronal excitability during arm and leg cycling is integrated by neural elements common to the lumbo-sacral and cervical spinal cord. The subjects performed bilateral leg cycling (LEG), contralateral arm cycling (ARM), and simultaneous contralateral arm and bilateral leg cycling (A&L), while ELCRs in the wrist flexor and shoulder flexor muscles were evoked by superficial radial (SR) nerve stimulation. ELCR amplitudes were facilitated by cycling tasks and were larger during A&L than during ARM and LEG. A low stimulus intensity during ARM or LEG generated a larger ELCR during A&L than the sum of ELCRs during ARM and LEG. We confirmed this nonlinear increase in single motor unit firing probability following SR nerve stimulation during A&L. Furthermore, motor-evoked potentials following transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation did not show nonlinear potentiation during A&L. These findings suggest the existence of a common neural element of the ELCR reflex pathway that is active only during rhythmic arm and leg movement and receives convergent input from contralateral arms and legs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207