↓ Skip to main content

Neurocontrol of Movement in Humans With Spinal Cord Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Artificial Organs, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Neurocontrol of Movement in Humans With Spinal Cord Injury
Published in
Artificial Organs, October 2015
DOI 10.1111/aor.12614
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In this review of neurocontrol of movement after spinal cord injury, we discuss neurophysiological evidences of conducting and processing mechanisms of the spinal cord. We illustrate that external afferent inputs to the spinal cord below the level of the lesion can modify, initiate, and maintain execution of movement in absence or partial presence of brain motor control after chronic spinal cord injury. We review significant differences between spinal reflex activity elicited by single and repetitive stimulation. The spinal cord can respond with sensitization, habituation, and dis-habituation to regular repetitive stimulation. Therefore, repetitive spinal cord reflex activity can contribute to the functional configuration of the spinal network. Moreover, testing spinal reflex activity in individuals with motor complete spinal cord injury provided evidences for subclinical residual brain influence, suggesting the existence of axons traversing the injury site and influencing the activities below the level of lesion. Thus, there are two motor control models of chronic spinal cord injury in humans: "discomplete" and "reduced and altered volitional motor control." We outline accomplishments in modification and initiation of altered neurocontrol in chronic spinal cord injury people with epidural and functional electrical stimulation. By nonpatterned electrical stimulation of lumbar posterior roots, it is possible to evoke bilateral extension as well as rhythmic motor outputs. Epidural stimulation during treadmill stepping shows increased and/or modified motor activity. Finally, volitional efforts can alter epidurally induced rhythmic activities in incomplete spinal cord injury. Overall, we highlight that upper motor neuron paralysis does not entail complete absence of connectivity between cortex, brain stem, and spinal motor cells, but there can be altered anatomy and corresponding neurophysiological characteristics. With specific input to the spinal cord below the level of the lesion, the clinical status of upper motor neuron paralysis without structural modification can be modified, and movements can be initiated. Thus, external afferent input can partially replace brain control.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 187 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Master 20 11%
Other 11 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 61 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 34 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Engineering 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 65 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,994,004
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Organs
#1,469
of 1,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,740
of 286,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Organs
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,958 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.