4.6 Review

Retraining the injured spinal cord

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 533, 期 1, 页码 15-22

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0015b.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present review presents a series of concepts that may be useful in developing rehabilitative strategies to enhance recovery of posture and locomotion following spinal cord injury. First, the loss of supraspinal input results in a marked change in the functional efficacy of the remaining synapses and neurons of intraspinal and peripheral afferent (dorsal root ganglion) origin. Second, following a complete transection the lumbosacral spinal cord can recover greater levels of motor performance if it has been exposed to the efferent and intraspinal activation patterns that are associated with standing and stepping. Third, the spinal cord can more readily reacquire the ability to stand and step following spinal cord transection with repetitive exposure to standing and stepping. Fourth, robotic assistive devices can be used to guide the kinematics of the limbs and thus expose the spinal cord to the new normal activity patterns associated with a particular motor task following spinal cord injury. In addition, such robotic assistive devices can provide immediate quantification of the limb kinematics. Fifth, the behavioural and physiological effects of spinal cord transection are reflected in adaptations in most, if not all, neurotransmitter systems in the lumbosacral spinal cord. Evidence is presented that both the GABAergic and glycinergic inhibitory systems are up-regulated following complete spinal cord transection and that step training results in some aspects of these transmitter systems being down-regulated towards control levels. These concepts and observations demonstrate that (a) the spinal cord can interpret complex afferent information and generate the appropriate motor task; and (b) motor ability can be defined to a large degree by training.

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

4.6
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