Whether interlimb reflexes emerge only after a severe insult to the human spinal cord is controversial. Here the aim was to examine interlimb reflexes at rest in participants with chronic (>1 year) spinal cord injury (SCI, n = 17) and able-bodied control participants (n = 5). Cutaneous reflexes were evoked by delivering up to 30 trains of stimuli to either the superficial peroneal nerve on the dorsum of the foot or the radial nerve at the wrist (5 pulses, 300 Hz, approximately every 30 s). Participants were instructed to relax the test muscles prior to the delivery of the stimuli. Electromyographic activity was recorded bilaterally in proximal and distal arm and leg muscles. Superficial peroneal nerve stimulation evoked interlimb reflexes in ipsilateral and contralateral arm and contralateral leg muscles of SCI and control participants. Radial nerve stimulation evoked interlimb reflexes in the ipsilateral leg and contralateral arm muscles of control and SCI participants but only contralateral leg muscles of control participants. Interlimb reflexes evoked by superficial peroneal nerve stimulation were longer in latency and duration, and larger in magnitude in SCI participants. Interlimb reflex properties were similar for both SCI and control groups for radial nerve stimulation. Ascending interlimb reflexes tended to occur with a higher incidence in participants with SCI, while descending interlimb reflexes occurred with a higher incidence in able-bodied participants. However, the overall incidence of interlimb reflexes in SCI and neurologically intact participants was similar which suggests that the neural circuitry underlying these reflexes does not necessarily develop after central nervous system injury.
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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,366,818
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#131,161
of 195,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,803
of 301,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,617
of 5,357 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 301,058 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 5,357 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
