Effet d’une stimulation cutanée tonique de la région lombaire sur l’activité locomotrice du chat adulte ayant une lésion complète de la moelle épinière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory feedback is a potent modulator of the locomotor pattern generated by spinal networks. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of cutaneous inputs from the back on the spinal-generated locomotor pattern. The spinal cord of six adult cats was transected at low thoracic levels. Cats were then trained to recover hindlimb locomotion. During experiments, the skin overlying lumbar vertebrae L2 to L7 was mechanically stimulated by a small calibrated clip or by manual pinching. Trials without and with cutaneous stimulation were performed at a treadmill speed of 0.4 m/s. Although manually pinching the skin completely stopped hindlimb locomotion and abolished weight support, cutaneous stimulation with the calibrated clip produced smaller effects. Specifically, more focalized cutaneous stimulation with the clip reduced flexor and extensor muscle activity and led to a more caudal positioning of the paw at contact and liftoff. Moreover, cutaneous stimulation with the clip led to a greater number of steps with improper non-plantigrade paw placements at contact and paw drag at the stance-to-swing transition. The most consistent effects on the hindlimb locomotor pattern were observed with cutaneous stimulation at mid-lumbar levels, from L3-L5. The results indicate that cutaneous stimulation of the skin modulates the excitability of spinal circuits involved in generating locomotion and weight support, particularly at spinal segments thought to be critical for rhythm generation.
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) | 0.005 | 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".