MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010126276 · doi:10.1152/jn.00591.2019

Interhemispheric modulations of motor outputs by the rostral and caudal forelimb areas in rats

2020· article· en· W3010126276 on OpenAlexaff
Boris Touvykine, Guillaume Elgbeili, Stephan Quessy, Numa Dancause

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsDouglas CollegeUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForelimbNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialStimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationMotor cortexAnatomyPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In rats, forelimb movements are evoked from two cortical regions, the caudal and rostral forelimb areas (CFA and RFA, respectively). These areas are densely interconnected and RFA induces complex and powerful modulations of CFA outputs. CFA and RFA also have interhemispheric connections, and these areas from both hemispheres send projections to common targets along the motor axis, providing multiple potential sites of interactions for movement production. Our objective was to characterize how CFA and RFA in one hemisphere can modulate motor outputs of the opposite hemisphere. To do so, we used paired-pulse protocols with intracortical microstimulation techniques (ICMS), while recording electromyographic (EMG) activity of forelimb muscles in sedated rats. A subthreshold conditioning stimulation was applied in either CFA or RFA in one hemisphere simultaneously or before a suprathreshold test stimulation in either CFA or RFA in the opposite hemisphere. Both CFA and RFA tended to facilitate motor outputs with short (0–2.5 ms) or long (20–35 ms) delays between the conditioning and test stimuli. In contrast, they tended to inhibit motor outputs with intermediate delays, in particular 10 ms. When comparing the two areas, we found that facilitatory effects from RFA were more frequent and powerful than the ones from CFA. In contrast, inhibitory effects from CFA on its homolog were more frequent and powerful than the ones from RFA. Our results demonstrate that interhemispheric modulations from CFA and RFA share some similarities but also have clear differences that could sustain specific functions these cortical areas carry for the generation of forelimb movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that caudal and rostral forelimb areas (CFA and RFA) have distinct effects on motor outputs from the opposite hemisphere, supporting that they are distinct nodes in the motor network of rats. However, the pattern of interhemispheric modulations from RFA has no clear equivalent among premotor areas in nonhuman primates, suggesting they contribute differently to the generation of ipsilateral hand movements. Understanding these interspecies differences is important given the common use of rodent models in motor control and recovery studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207