Combining cortical and spinal stimulation maximizes improvement of gait after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Most spinal cord injuries (SCI) spare descending motor pathways and sublesional networks, which can be activated through motor cortex and spinal cord stimulation to mitigate locomotor deficits. However, the potential synergy between cortical and spinal stimulation as a neuroprosthetic intervention remains unknown. Here, we first investigated phase-locked electrical stimulation of the motor cortex and lumbar spinal cord at 40 Hz in a rat model of unilateral SCI. Combining cortical and lumbar stimulation around the anticipated lift synergistically enhanced leg movements. When integrated into rehabilitation training, cortical stimulation proved essential for recovery of skilled locomotion. As a further refinement, we next investigated the effects of high-frequency (330 Hz) lumbar and sacral stimulation combined with cortical stimulation. Timely integration during the swing phase showed that cortical and rostral lumbar stimulations enhance the initial and mid-swing phases, while sacral stimulation improves extension velocity in the late swing. These findings indicate that supraspinal and sublesional neuromodulation offer complementary neuroprosthetic effects in targeted SCI gait rehabilitation. Highlights Cortical and spinal stimulations summate motor outputs via distinct pathways. Each improves gait post-SCI, but combined stimulation maximizes gait improvement. Integrating cortico-spinal stimulation into rehabilitation promotes lasting recovery. EES capabilities extended using high-frequency lumbosacral protocols.
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) | 0.003 | 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".