↓ Skip to main content

A Proposal for a Rat Model of Spinal Cord Injury Featuring the Rubrospinal Tract and its Contributions to Locomotion and Skilled Hand Movement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
48 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.
Title
A Proposal for a Rat Model of Spinal Cord Injury Featuring the Rubrospinal Tract and its Contributions to Locomotion and Skilled Hand Movement
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renée Morris, Ian Q. Whishaw

Abstract

Spinal cord injury and repair is a dynamic field of research. The development of reliable animal models of traumatic spinal cord injury has been invaluable in providing a wealth of information regarding the pathological consequences and recovery potential of this condition. A number of injury models have been instrumental in the elaboration and the validation of therapeutic interventions aimed at reversing this once thought permanent condition. In general, the study of spinal cord injury and repair is made difficult by both its anatomical complexity and the complexity of the behavior it mediates. In this perspective paper, we suggest a new model for spinal cord investigation that simplifies problems related to both the functional and anatomical complexity of the spinal cord. We begin by reviewing and contrasting some of the most common animal models used for investigating spinal cord dysfunction. We then consider two widely used models of spinal deficit-recovery, one involving the corticospinal tracts (CTS) and the other the rubrospinal tract (RST). We argue that the simplicity of the function of the RST makes it a useful model for studying the cord and its functional repair. We also reflect on two obstacles that have hindered progress in the pre-clinical field, delaying translation to the clinical setup. The first is recovery of function without reconnection of the transected descending fibers and the second is the use of behavioral paradigms that are not under the control of the descending fiber pathway under scrutiny.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 25%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 13 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Psychology 3 6%
Design 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 23%
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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,137
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#347,112
of 405,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#145
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 405,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.