↓ Skip to main content

Maladaptive spinal plasticity opposes spinal learning and recovery in spinal cord injury

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
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 (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Maladaptive spinal plasticity opposes spinal learning and recovery in spinal cord injury
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00399
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam R. Ferguson, J. Russell Huie, Eric D. Crown, Kyle M. Baumbauer, Michelle A. Hook, Sandra M. Garraway, Kuan H. Lee, Kevin C. Hoy, James W. Grau

Abstract

Synaptic plasticity within the spinal cord has great potential to facilitate recovery of function after spinal cord injury (SCI). Spinal plasticity can be induced in an activity-dependent manner even without input from the brain after complete SCI. A mechanistic basis for these effects is provided by research demonstrating that spinal synapses have many of the same plasticity mechanisms that are known to underlie learning and memory in the brain. In addition, the lumbar spinal cord can sustain several forms of learning and memory, including limb-position training. However, not all spinal plasticity promotes recovery of function. Central sensitization of nociceptive (pain) pathways in the spinal cord may emerge in response to various noxious inputs, demonstrating that plasticity within the spinal cord may contribute to maladaptive pain states. In this review we discuss interactions between adaptive and maladaptive forms of activity-dependent plasticity in the spinal cord below the level of SCI. The literature demonstrates that activity-dependent plasticity within the spinal cord must be carefully tuned to promote adaptive spinal training. Prior work from our group has shown that stimulation that is delivered in a limb position-dependent manner or on a fixed interval can induce adaptive plasticity that promotes future spinal cord learning and reduces nociceptive hyper-reactivity. On the other hand, stimulation that is delivered in an unsynchronized fashion, such as randomized electrical stimulation or peripheral skin injuries, can generate maladaptive spinal plasticity that undermines future spinal cord learning, reduces recovery of locomotor function, and promotes nociceptive hyper-reactivity after SCI. We review these basic phenomena, how these findings relate to the broader spinal plasticity literature, discuss the cellular and molecular mechanisms, and finally discuss implications of these and other findings for improved rehabilitative therapies after SCI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 111 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 28 24%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 31 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Engineering 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 27 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 November 2012.
All research outputs
#14,393,409
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,099
of 14,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,192
of 247,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#120
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 247,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 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 59% of its contemporaries.