Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36267917›Full record

ArticleiScience2022

Cortical contributions to locomotor primitives in toddlers and adults.

Coen S Zandvoort, Andreas Daffertshofer, Nadia Dominici

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Coen S ZandvoortDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081BT, the Netherlands.
Andreas DaffertshoferDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081BT, the Netherlands.
Nadia DominiciDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081BT, the Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The neural locomotor system strongly relies on spinal circuitries. Yet, the control of bipedal gait is accompanied by activity in motor cortex. In human gait control, the functional interaction between these cortical contributions and their spinal counterparts are largely elusive. We focused on four spinal activation patterns during walking and explored their cortical signatures in toddlers and adults. In both groups, cortico-spinal coherence analysis revealed activity in primary motor cortex to be closely related to two of the four spinal patterns. Their corresponding muscle synergies are known to develop around the onset of independent walking. By hypothesis, the cortex hence contributes to the emergence of these synergies. In contrast, the other two spinal patterns investigated here resembled those present during newborn stepping. As expected, they did not show any cortical involvement. Together, our findings suggest a crucial role of motor cortex for independent walking in humans.

Indexed as

Behavioral neuroscienceBiological sciencesNeuroscience

Identifiers

PMID36267917
PMCPMC9576581
OpenAlexW4297327837

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.