4.4 Article

Plasticity of spinal cord reflexes after a complete transection in adult rats: Relationship to stepping ability

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 4, Pages 1699-1710

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00325.2006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS-16333] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Changes in epidurally induced (S1) spinal cord reflexes were studied as a function of the level of restoration of stepping ability after spinal cord transection (ST). Three types of responses were observed. The early response (ER) had a latency of 2.5 to 3 ms and resulted from direct stimulation of motor fibers or motoneurons. The middle response (MR) had a latency of 5 to 7 ms and was monosynaptic. The late response (LR) had a latency of 9 to 11 ms and was polysynaptic. After a complete midthoracic ST, the LR was abolished, whereas the MR was facilitated and progressively increased. The LR reappeared about 3 wk after ST and increased during the following weeks. Restoration of stepping induced by epidural stimulation at 40 Hz coincided with changes in the LR. During the first 2 wk post-ST, rats were unable to step and electrophysiological assessment failed to show any LR. Three weeks post-ST, epidural stimulation resulted in a few steps and these coincided with reappearance of the LR. The ability of rats to step progressively improved from wk 3 to wk 6 post-ST. There was a continuously improved modulation of rhythmic EMG bursts that was correlated with restoration of the LR. These results suggest that restoration of polysynaptic spinal cord reflexes after complete ST coincides with restoration of stepping function when facilitated by epidural stimulation. Combined, these findings support the view that restoration of polysynaptic spinal cord reflexes induced epidurally may provide a measure of functional restoration of spinal cord locomotor networks after ST.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available