Interlimb Coordination during Tied-Belt and Transverse Split-Belt Locomotion before and after an Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordination between the arms/forelimbs and legs/hindlimbs is often impaired in humans and quadrupedal mammals after incomplete spinal cord injury. In quadrupeds, the forelimbs often take more steps than the hindlimbs, producing a two-to-one forelimb-hindlimb (2-1 FL-HL) coordination. In locomotor performance scales, this is generally considered a loss of FL-HL coordination. Here, FL-HL coordination was quantified before and 8 weeks after a lateral spinal hemisection at the sixth thoracic segment in six adult cats. Cats were tested during tied-belt locomotion (equal front and rear speeds) and transverse split-belt locomotion with the forelimbs or hindlimbs stepping faster. The results show that consistent phasing between forelimb and hindlimb movements was maintained after hemisection, even with the appearance of 2-1 FL-HL coordination, indicating that new stable forms of coordination emerge. Moreover, transverse split-belt locomotion potently modulated interlimb coordination and was capable of restoring a one-to-one FL-HL coordination with a faster treadmill speed for the hindlimbs. In conclusion, the results suggest that neural communication persists after an incomplete spinal cord injury, despite an unequal number of steps between the forelimbs and hindlimbs, and that interlimb coordination can be modulated by having the forelimbs or hindlimbs move at a faster frequency. We propose that locomotor recovery scales incorporate more sensitive methods to quantify FL-HL coordination, to better reflect residual functional capacity and possible cervicolumbar neural communication. Lastly, devising training protocols that make use of the bidirectional influences of the cervical and lumbar locomotor pattern generators could strengthen interlimb coordination and promote locomotor recovery.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".