Cutaneous inputs from perineal region facilitate spinal locomotor activity and modulate cutaneous reflexes from the foot in spinal cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that mechanically stimulating the perineal region potently facilitates hindlimb locomotion and weight support in mammals with a spinal transection (spinal mammals). However, how perineal stimulation mediates this excitatory effect is poorly understood. We evaluated the effect of mechanically stimulating (vibration or pinch) the perineal region on ipsilateral (9-14 ms onset) and contralateral (14-18 ms onset) short-latency cutaneous reflex responses evoked by electrically stimulating the superficial peroneal or distal tibial nerve in seven adult spinal cats where hindlimb movement was restrained. Cutaneous reflexes were evoked before, during, and after mechanical stimulation of the perineal region. We found that vibration or pinch of the perineal region effectively triggered rhythmic activity, ipsilateral and contralateral to nerve stimulation. When electrically stimulating nerves, adding perineal stimulation modulated rhythmic activity by decreasing cycle and burst durations and by increasing the amplitude of flexors and extensors. Perineal stimulation also disrupted the timing of the ipsilateral rhythm, which had been entrained by nerve stimulation. Mechanically stimulating the perineal region decreased ipsilateral and contralateral short-latency reflex responses evoked by cutaneous inputs, a phenomenon we observed in muscles crossing different joints and located in different limbs. The results suggest that the excitatory effect of perineal stimulation on locomotion and weight support is mediated by increasing the excitability of central pattern-generating circuitry and not by increasing excitatory inputs from cutaneous afferents of the foot. Our results are consistent with a state-dependent modulation of reflexes by spinal interneuronal circuits.
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) | 0.001 | 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".