2005
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.01931
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physiologically adaptive changes of the L5 afferent neurogram and of the rat soleus EMG activity during 14 days of hindlimb unloading and recovery

Abstract: HU conditions cannot be considered as a functional deafferentation, as suggested in the literature, but only as a reduction of afferent information at the beginning of the HU period.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
53
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
2
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…During HU, the contact of the plantar sole of hindlimb with the ground is prevented and thus the tactile information from the paw and the proprioceptive input from the limb are dramatically reduced [4][6]. As previously described by our group, the sensorimotor restriction obtained by a 14-day period of HU induces a reorganization of cortical maps, characterized by a shrinkage of the foot representation area and an enlargement of cutaneous receptive fields (RF) [2], [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…During HU, the contact of the plantar sole of hindlimb with the ground is prevented and thus the tactile information from the paw and the proprioceptive input from the limb are dramatically reduced [4][6]. As previously described by our group, the sensorimotor restriction obtained by a 14-day period of HU induces a reorganization of cortical maps, characterized by a shrinkage of the foot representation area and an enlargement of cutaneous receptive fields (RF) [2], [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…The recording of neurogram might bring another explanation. The activity recorded at the fifth lumbar root of the spinal cord (which innervates the hindlimb) is decreased during the first days of HU, and recovers normal levels within ∼10 days [4], [37]. It is likely that the thalamocortical input is dependent on the activity of peripheral sensory nerves and varies accordingly.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is important to underline that lack of effects on restCa and gCl was observed in the entire set of Sol muscles independently of the recovery of muscle weight. In HU condition, the slow-to-fast phenotype transition is at least partially related to a change in motor-neuron electrical activity [68]. Accordingly, a low frequency electrical stimulation in HU Sol muscle was shown to partially improve Sol muscle mass and the peak tetanic force [69].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…87 HU greatly reduces muscle spindle afferent input, and this perturbation in afferent input has a robust effect on lumbar spinal circuitry. 88,89 Given that muscle spindle feedback has been shown to drive adaptive plasticity of propriospinal relay circuits and recovery after incomplete SCI, it could be hypothesized that HU would have a deleterious impact on recovery after SCI. 90 The Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) test of motorneuron pool excitability is a useful tool for assessing the modification of spinal plasticity, and the anti-gravity slow-twitch soleus muscle is well-recognized as an appropriate muscle for recording the modification of the H-reflex at the L5 ventral root level after HU.…”
Section: Limb Immobilization and Hindlimb Unloadingmentioning
confidence: 99%