MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Spinal Control of Backward Locomotion

2020· article· en· W3108707268 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Harnie, Johannie Audet, Alexander N. Klishko, Adam Doelman, Boris I. Prilutsky, Alain Frigon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsTreadmillTonic (physiology)KinematicsSpinal cordCentral pattern generatorPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSomatosensory systemElectromyographyGaitSTRIDEAnatomyNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyPhysicsRhythmPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal locomotion requires changing direction, from forward to backward. Here, we tested the hypothesis that sensorimotor circuits within the spinal cord generate backward locomotion and adjust it to task demands. We collected kinematic and electromyography (EMG) data during forward and backward locomotion at different treadmill speeds before and after complete spinal transection in six adult cats (three males and three females). After spinal transection, five/six cats performed backward locomotion, which required tonic somatosensory input in the form of perineal stimulation. One spinal cat performed forward locomotion but not backward locomotion while two others stepped backward but not forward. Spatiotemporal adjustments to increasing speed were similar in intact and spinal cats during backward locomotion and strategies were similar to forward locomotion, with shorter cycle and stance durations and longer stride lengths. Patterns of muscle activations, including muscle synergies, were similar for forward and backward locomotion in spinal cats. Indeed, we identified five muscle synergies that were similar during forward and backward locomotion. Lastly, spinal cats also stepped backward on a split-belt treadmill, with the left and right hindlimbs stepping at different speeds. Therefore, our results show that spinal sensorimotor circuits generate backward locomotion but require additional excitability compared with forward locomotion. Similar strategies for speed modulation and similar patterns of muscle activations and muscle synergies during forward and backward locomotion are consistent with a shared spinal locomotor network, with sensory feedback from the limbs controlling the direction. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTAnimal locomotion requires changing direction, including forward, sideways and backward. This paper shows that the center controlling locomotion within the spinal cord can produce a backward pattern when instructed by sensory signals from the limbs. However, the spinal locomotor network requires greater excitability to produce backward locomotion compared with forward locomotion. The paper also shows that the spinal network controlling locomotion in the forward direction also controls locomotion in the backward direction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207