MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324128794 · doi:10.1113/jp284275

Facilitation of sensory transmission to motoneurons during cortical or sensory‐evoked primary afferent depolarization (PAD) in humans

2023· article· en· W4324128794 on OpenAlexafffund
Krista Metz, Isabel Concha Matos, Yaqing Li, Babak Afsharipour, Christopher K. Thompson, Francesco Negro, Katharina A. Quinlan, David J. Bennett, Monica A. Gorassini

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsNeuroscienceSensory systemTonic (physiology)Excitatory postsynaptic potentialReflexDepolarizationStimulationProprioceptionInhibitory postsynaptic potentialFacilitationPostsynaptic potentialGABAA receptorNeurotransmissionChemistryAnatomyBiologyReceptorBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sensory and corticospinal tract (CST) pathways activate spinal GABAergic interneurons that have axoaxonic connections onto proprioceptive (Ia) afferents that cause long‐lasting depolarizations (termed primary afferent depolarization, PAD). In rodents, sensory‐evoked PAD is produced by GABAA receptors at nodes of Ranvier in Ia afferents, rather than at presynaptic terminals, and facilitates spike propagation to motoneurons by preventing branch‐point failures, rather than causing presynaptic inhibition. We examined in 40 human participants whether putative activation of Ia‐PAD by sensory or CST pathways can also facilitate Ia afferent activation of motoneurons via the H‐reflex. H‐reflexes in several leg muscles were facilitated by prior conditioning from low‐threshold proprioceptive, cutaneous or CST pathways, with a similar long‐lasting time course (∼200 ms) to phasic PAD measured in rodent Ia afferents. Long trains of cutaneous or proprioceptive afferent conditioning produced longer‐lasting facilitation of the H‐reflex for up to 2 min, consistent with tonic PAD in rodent Ia afferents mediated by nodal α5‐GABAA receptors for similar stimulation trains. Facilitation of H‐reflexes by this conditioning was likely not mediated by direct facilitation of the motoneurons because isolated stimulation of sensory or CST pathways did not alone facilitate the tonic firing rate of motor units. Furthermore, cutaneous conditioning increased the firing probability of single motor units (motoneurons) during the H‐reflex without increasing their firing rate at this time, indicating that the underlying excitatory postsynaptic potential was more probable, but not larger. These results are consistent with sensory and CST pathways activating nodal GABAA receptors that reduce intermittent failure of action potentials propagating into Ia afferent branches. image Key points Controlled execution of posture and movement requires continually adjusted feedback from peripheral sensory pathways, especially those that carry proprioceptive information about body position, movement and effort. It was previously thought that the flow of proprioceptive feedback from Ia afferents was only reduced by GABAergic neurons in the spinal cord that sent axoaxonic projections to the terminal endings of sensory axons (termed GABAaxo neurons). Based on new findings in rodents, we provide complementary evidence in humans to suggest that sensory and corticospinal pathways known to activate GABAaxo neurons that project to dorsal parts of the Ia afferent also increase the flow of proprioceptive feedback to motoneurons in the spinal cord. These findings support a new role for spinal GABAaxo neurons in facilitating afferent feedback to the spinal cord during voluntary or reflexive movements.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207