Muscle-Specific Modulation of Spinal Reflexes in Lower-Limb Muscles during Action Observation with and without Motor Imagery of Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) are useful techniques in neurorehabilitation. Previous studies have reported that AO and MI facilitate corticospinal excitability only in those muscles that are active when actually performing the observed or imagined movements. However, it remained unclear whether spinal reflexes modulate multiple muscles simultaneously. The present study focused on AO and MI of walking and aimed to clarify their effects on spinal reflexes in lower-limb muscles that are recruited during actual walking. Ten healthy males participated in the present study. Spinal reflex parameters evoked by transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation were measured from five lower-limb muscles during rest, AO, and AO combined with MI (AO + MI) conditions. Our results showed that spinal reflexes were increased in the tibialis anterior and biceps femoris muscles during AO and in the tibialis anterior, soleus, and medial gastrocnemius muscles during AO + MI, compared with resting condition. Spinal reflex parameters in the vastus medialis muscle were unchanged. These results indicate the muscle-specific modulations of spinal reflexes during AO and AO + MI. These findings reveal the underlying neural activities induced by AO, MI, and their combined processes.
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".