Suppression of somatosensory stimuli during motor planning may explain levels of balance and mobility after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to actively suppress, or gate, irrelevant sensory information is required for safe and efficient walking in sensory-rich environments. Both motor attention and motor planning alter somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in healthy adults. This study's aim was to examine the effect of motor attention on processing of irrelevant somatosensory information during plantar flexion motor planning after stroke. Thirteen healthy older adults and 11 individuals with stroke participated. Irrelevant tibial nerve stimulation was delivered while SEPs were recorded over Cz, overlaying the leg portion of the sensorimotor cortex at the vertex of the head. Three conditions were tested in both legs: (1) Rest, (2) Attend To, and (3) Attend Away from the stimulated limb. In conditions 2 and 3, relevant vibration cued voluntary plantar flexion movements of the stimulated (Attend To) or non-stimulated (Attend Away) leg. SEP amplitudes were averaged during motor planning per condition. Individuals with stroke did not show attention-mediated gating of the N40 component associated with irrelevant somatosensory information during motor planning. It may be that dysfunction in pathways connecting to area 3b explains the lack of attention-mediated gating of the N40. Also, attention-mediated gating during motor planning explained significant and unique variance in a measure of community balance and mobility combined with response time. Thus, the ability to gate irrelevant somatosensory information appears important for stepping in both older adults and after stroke. Our data suggest that therapies that direct motor attention could positively impact walking after stroke.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".