Corticospinal excitability and interconnectivity of the limbs during arm cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence of neural interlimb communication between the fore and hind limbs in quadrupeds and the arms and legs in humans. Appropriate coordination between upper and lower limbs is an important characteristic of quadrupedal and human locomotion and part of this coordination involves cortical and spinal control. This communication between the cortex and spinal cord suggests that neural coupling between the upper and lower limbs occurs during rhythmic movement. Most studies aimed at assessing interlimb coordination during locomotor output have utilized H- reflexes and/or surface EMG. However, the effects of rhythmic locomotor output (arm and/or leg cycling) on corticospinal excitability of stationary limbs (arm and/or leg) has yet to be clearly examined. In addition, it seems interlimb pathways probably modulate cortical and spinal pathways during locomotor tasks as a function of movement intensity. The current study demonstrated an intensity-dependent enhancement in corticospinal excitability to the resting biceps brachii and vastus lateralis during leg and arm cycling, respectively. Assessing of interlimb coordination between upper and lower limbs may improve knowledge translation to neurological rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".