Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Dec 17.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroscience. 2016 Oct 1;339:235–253. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.09.043

Fig. 2. Effect of LHS on PLRs.

Fig. 2

(A,B) Reflex electromyographic (EMG) and force responses to the whole platform tilts before (A) and after (B) left LHS at L1 in Rabbit #244. EMGs of m. gastrocnemius lateralis (Gast) and m. vastus lateralis (Vast) were recorded. (C) Averaged EMG and force responses recorded before and after LHS in the limb ipsilateral (Ipsi-LHS) and in the limb contralateral (Co-LHS) to LHS. Under each condition, responses in 10 sequential tilt cycles were averaged. (D) Mean values (±SE) of the dynamic and static force responses (indicated in C) before and after LHS on the lesioned (Ipsi-LHS) and on the intact (Co-LHS) side (N=7; n=134, before LHS; n=117, after LHS), as well as the passive force (Psv, N=4, n=20). (E) An example of the residual incorrectly phased response in Vast-L on the lesioned side. There was 30x increase in EMG amplification after LHS. (F) Proportion of different types of EMG responses to the whole platform tilts in Vast and Gast before LHS and after LHS in the limb contralateral to the lesion (Co-LHS) and in the limb ipsilateral to the lesion (Ipsi-LHS). (Flex, activation with ipsi-limb flexion; Ext, activation with limb extension; Flex&Ext, activation with both movements; No resp, EMG not responding). Number of animals and analysed cycles: N=7, n=134 (before LHS), n=117 (after LHS). (G) Proportion of different types of EMG responses to separate tilts of the left and right platform before and after LHS. Ipsi-plat tilts, tilts of the platform under the limb; Co-plat tilts, tilts of the platform under contralateral limb. Number of animals and analysed cycles: N=7, n=96 and n=95 during ipsi- and co-plat tilts, respectively, under each condition.