Sensory enhancement amplifies interlimb cutaneous reflexes in wrist extensor muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interlimb neural connections support motor tasks such as locomotion and cross-education strength training. Somatosensory pathways that can be assessed with cutaneous reflex paradigms assist in subserving these connections. Many studies show that stimulation of cutaneous nerves elicits reflexes in muscles widespread across the body and induces neural plasticity after training. Sensory enhancement, such as long-duration trains of transcutaneous stimulation, facilitates performance during rehabilitation training or fatiguing motor tasks. Performance improvements due to sensory stimulation may be caused by altered spinal and corticospinal excitability. However, how enhanced sensory input regulates the excitability of interlimb cutaneous reflex pathways has not been studied. Our purpose was to investigate the effects of sensory enhancement on interlimb cutaneous reflexes in wrist extensor muscles. Stimulation to provide sensory enhancement (2-s trains at 150 Hz to median or superficial radial nerves) or evoke cutaneous reflexes (15-ms trains at 300 Hz to superficial radial nerve) was applied in different arms while participants ( n = 13) performed graded isometric wrist extension. Wrist extensor electromyography and cutaneous reflexes were measured bilaterally. We found amplified inhibitory reflexes in the arm receiving superficial radial and median nerve sensory enhancement with net reflex amplitudes decreased by 709.5% and 695.3% repetitively. This suggests sensory input alters neuronal excitabilities in the interlimb cutaneous pathways. These findings have potential application in facilitating motor function recovery through alterations in spinal cord excitability enhancing sensory input during targeted rehabilitation and sports training. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that sensory enhancement increases excitability in interlimb cutaneous pathways and that these effects are not influenced by descending motor drive on the contralateral side. These findings confirm the role of sensory input and cutaneous pathways in regulating interlimb movements. In targeted motor function training or rehabilitation, sensory enhancement may be applied to facilitate outcomes.
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) | 0.006 | 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".