MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489957719 · doi:10.1113/jp272740

Left–right coordination from simple to extreme conditions during split‐belt locomotion in the chronic spinal adult cat

2016· article· en· W2489957719 on OpenAlexafffund
Alain Frigon, Étienne Desrochers, Yann Thibaudier, Marie‐France Hurteau, Charline Dambreville

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsHindlimbSpinal cordAnatomyBipedalismNeuroscienceMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points Coordination between the left and right sides is essential for dynamic stability during locomotion. The immature or neonatal mammalian spinal cord can adjust to differences in speed between the left and right sides during split‐belt locomotion by taking more steps on the fast side. We show that the adult mammalian spinal cord can also adjust its output so that the fast side can take more steps. During split‐belt locomotion, only certain parts of the cycle are modified to adjust left–right coordination, primarily those associated with swing onset. When the fast limb takes more steps than the slow limb, strong left–right interactions persist. Therefore, the adult mammalian spinal cord has a remarkable adaptive capacity for left–right coordination, from simple to extreme conditions. Abstract Although left–right coordination is essential for locomotion, its control is poorly understood, particularly in adult mammals. To investigate the spinal control of left–right coordination, a spinal transection was performed in six adult cats that were then trained to recover hindlimb locomotion. Spinal cats performed tied‐belt locomotion from 0.1 to 1.0 m s −1 and split‐belt locomotion with low to high (1:1.25–10) slow/fast speed ratios. With the left hindlimb stepping at 0.1 m s −1 and the right hindlimb stepping from 0.2 to 1.0 m s −1 , 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5 left–right step relationships could appear. The appearance of 1:2+ relationships was not linearly dependent on the difference in speed between the slow and fast belts. The last step taken by the fast hindlimb displayed longer cycle, stance and swing durations and increased extensor activity, as the slow limb transitioned to swing. During split‐belt locomotion with 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 relationships, the timing of stance onset of the fast limb relative to the slow limb and placement of both limbs at contact were invariant with increasing slow/fast speed ratios. In contrast, the timing of stance onset of the slow limb relative to the fast limb and the placement of both limbs at swing onset were modulated with slow/fast speed ratios. Thus, left–right coordination is adjusted by modifying specific parts of the cycle. Results highlight the remarkable adaptive capacity of the adult mammalian spinal cord, providing insight into spinal mechanisms and sensory signals regulating left–right coordination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207