English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Rhythmic limb movements like locomotion or paw-shake response are controlled by network of spinal circuits, known as central pattern generators (CPGs), as evidenced from locomotor-like and paw-shake like activity in limb peripheral nerves elicited in decerebrate or spinal animals with blocked neuromuscular transmission [4]. Unlike fictive locomotion and scratch, that are likely controlled by distinct CPGs [3], fictive paw-shake response has not been systematically investigated and it is not known whether it is controlled by a specialized CPG or by the CPG that also controls locomotion. In-vivo recordings of paw-shake motor patterns elicited by stimulation of paw skin afferents [7] have revealed high frequency hindlimb oscillations (~10 Hz) with atypical muscle synergies – reciprocal activation of anterior and posterior hindlimb muscles in each half of the paw-shake cycle; both anterior and posterior muscle groups include flexor and extensor muscles. We asked whether a paw-shake response with the atypical muscle synergies can be generated by a typical half-center locomotor CPG reciprocally activating flexor and extensor muscles.  Using software AnimatLab [2] we developed a 5-segment cat hindlimb model with 12 Hill-type muscle actuators controlled by (1) a half-center CPG activating flexor and extensor muscles (two-joint muscles received both flexion- and extension-related signals [5,6]) and (2) proprioceptive input originated from the muscle spindle and Golgi tendon organ afferents. The CPG was modeled by two single-compartment spiking neurons in a half-center configuration. Other neurons (Ia-afferents, alpha-motor neurons, Ia-interneurons, and interneurons mediating autogenic and heterogenic reflex pathways) were modeled as non-spiking neurons (firing rate model based on work by [1]). Model parameters were adjusted such that computer simulations reproduced the recorded paw-shake mechanics and the anterior-posterior muscle activation patterns.  The obtained results demonstrated that a half-center locomotor CPG can produce movement mechanics and muscle activity patterns typical for paw-shake responses if (1) the locomotor CPG is capable to operate at frequencies 3 to10 times higher than during locomotion and (2) synaptic weights in spinal circuits can be modified during paw-shake response. We speculate that the two conditions can be realized by sensory input from paw skin afferents.

Paw-shake response and locomotion: can one CPG generate two different rhythmic behaviors?