4.5 Article

Limits on recovery in the corticospinal tract of the rat: Partial lesions impair skilled reaching and the topographic representation of the forelimb in motor cortex

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH BULLETIN
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 203-211

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.04.013

关键词

cortical stimulation and movement; motor maps; pyramidal tract; rat pyramidal tract; recovery from pyramidal tract lesion; skilled reaching; skilled reaching and pyramidal tract

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although evidence suggests that there are impairments in skilled movements following very large lesions of the pyramidal component of the corticospinal tract, the behavioral and electrophysiological effects of partial lesion has not received equal attention. Here, rats with complete lesions or partial lesions (medial, central, or lateral third) of the pyramidal tract at the medullary pyramids were evaluated for their quantitative and qualitative postsurgical performance on a skilled reaching task, following which the topographic representation of their forelimb was mapped with intracortical microstimulation (ICMS). Complete lesions impaired reaching success, impaired the qualitative features of reaching movements, and abolished ICMS evoked movement from the forelimb region of motor cortex. Although partial lesions did not impair reaching success, they did impair qualitative aspects of limb movement including forepaw aiming, supination, and food pellet release. ICMS indicated a reduction in the size of the forelimb area, especially the distal area of the caudal forelimb area (CIA), of the motor map. The behavioral and electrophysiological impairments did not vary with lesion location within the pyramidal tract. The incomplete recovery, as measured both behaviorally and electrophysiologically, demonstrates that plasticity within the corticospinal system is limited even with lesions that permit substantial sparing of pyramidal tract fibers. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据