Modulation of corticospinal input to the legs by arm and leg cycling in people with incomplete spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spinal cervico-lumbar interaction during rhythmic movements in humans has recently been studied; however, the role of arm movements in modulating the corticospinal drive to the legs is not well understood. The goals of this study were to investigate the effect of active rhythmic arm movements on the corticospinal drive to the legs ( study 1) and assess the effect of simultaneous arm and leg training on the corticospinal pathway after incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) ( study 2). In study 1, neurologically intact (NI) participants or participants with iSCI performed combinations of stationary and rhythmic cycling of the arms and legs while motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the vastus lateralis (VL) muscle. In the NI group, arm cycling alone could facilitate the VL MEP amplitude, suggesting that dynamic arm movements strongly modulate the corticospinal pathway to the legs. No significant difference in VL MEP between conditions was found in participants with iSCI. In study 2, participants with iSCI underwent 12 wk of electrical stimulation-assisted cycling training: one group performed simultaneous arm and leg (A&L) cycling and the other legs-only cycling. MEPs in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle were compared before and after training. After training, only the A&L group had a significantly larger TA MEP, suggesting increased excitability in the corticospinal pathway. The findings demonstrate the importance of arm movements in modulating the corticospinal drive to the legs and suggest that active engagement of the arms in lower limb rehabilitation may produce better neural regulation and restoration of function. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study aimed to demonstrate the importance of arm movements in modulating the corticospinal drive to the legs. It provides direct evidence in humans that active movement of the arms could facilitate corticospinal transmission to the legs and, for the first time, shows that facilitation is absent after spinal cord injury. Active engagement of the arms in lower limb rehabilitation increased the excitability of the corticospinal pathway and may produce more effective improvement in leg function.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".