Removal of supraspinal input reveals a difference in the flexor and extensor monosynaptic reflex response to quipazine independent of motoneuron excitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if quipazine, a serotonergic agonist, differentially modulates flexor and extensor motor output. This was achieved by examining the monosynaptic reflex (MSR) of the tibial (extensor) and peroneal (flexor) nerves, by determining the basic and rhythmic properties of extensor and flexor motoneurons, and by recording extracellular Ia field potentials of the tibial and peroneal nerves in the in vivo adult decerebrate rat in both spinal intact and acute spinalized preparations. In the spinal intact preparation, the tibial and peroneal MSR amplitude significantly increased compared with baseline in response to quipazine, with no difference between nerves (P < 0.05). In the spinalized preparation, the MSR was significantly increased in both the tibial and peroneal nerves with the latter increasing more than the former (5.7 vs. 3.6 times; P < 0.05). Intracellular motoneuron experiments demonstrated that rheobase decreased, while input resistance, afterhyperpolarization amplitude, and the firing rate at a given current injection increased in motoneurons following quipazine administration with no differences between extensor and flexor motoneurons. Both the tibial and peroneal nerve extracellular Ia field potentials increased with the peroneal demonstrating a significantly greater increase (7 vs. 38%; P < 0.05) following quipazine. It is concluded that in the spinal intact preparation quipazine does not have a differential effect on flexor or extensor motor output. However, in the acute spinalized preparation, quipazine preferentially affects the flexor MSR compared with the extensor MSR, likely due to the removal of a descending tonic inhibition on flexor Ia afferents.
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) | 0.001 | 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".