Altered Kinematic Patterns and Synapses in Recovery of Motor Behavior After Hindlimb Deafferentation in Cats

  • M. E. Goldberger


Recovery of motor behavior following damage to the adult mammalian CNS could occur in a number of different ways. One possibility is that the initially lost or impaired physiological mechanisms underlying normal motor behavior are restored due to plasticity of the remaining systems. For example, when a pathway or system is only partially damaged, the spared parts of the pathway may increase the control they exert. One way in which this might occur is if cells post-synaptic to the partially spared pathway increase their responsiveness to the reduced input by changes in regulation of their receptors or if the reduced input increases by sprouting. The prediction that follows from that model is that the behavior that is lost immediately following the lesion and the behavior that recovers at a later time will be similar in many respects. Another way in which motor behavior may recover involves the production of movement by physiological mechanisms which, because of the conditions imposed by CNS injury, differ from normal ones. This mode of recovery may be anticipated when an entire system has been eliminated. In this case, if movement does indeed recover, the underlying physiological mechanisms, no longer available, must be replaced by others. Since the anatomical pathways mediating the relevant motor functions will then differ to some extent from the normal ones, it seems reasonable to expect alterations in the behavior as well.


Dorsal Root Dorsal Horn Step Cycle Kinematic Pattern Postural Reflex 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beck CH, Chambers WW (1970) Speed, accuracy and strength of forelimb movement after unilateral pyramidotomy in rhesus monkeys. J Comp Physiol Psycol Part 2 70: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley NS, Smith JL, Villablanca JR (1983) Absence of hindlimb tactile placing in spinal cats and kittens. Exp Neurol 82: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman CE, Wiesendanger M (1982) Recovery of function following unilateral lesions of the bulbar pyramid in the monkey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 53: 374–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coimbra A, Sodre-Borges BP, Magalhaes MM (1974) The substantia gelatinosa Rolandi of the rat. Fine structure, cytochemistry (acid phosphatase) and changes after dorsal root section. J Neurocytol 3: 199–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Devor M (1987) On mechanisms of somatotopic plasticity. In: Pubols LM, Sessle BJ (eds) Effects of injury on trigeminal and spinal somatosensory systems. Liss, New York, pp 215–225Google Scholar
  6. Finger S, Hart T, Jones E (1982) Recovery time and sensorimotor cortex lesion effects. Physiol Behav 29: 73–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldberger ME (1972) Restitution of function in the CNS: The pathologic grasp reflex. Exp Brain Res 15: 79–96Google Scholar
  8. Goldberger ME (1977) Locomotor recovery after unilateral hindlimb deafferentation in cats. Brain Res 123: 59–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldberger ME, Murray M (1978) Axonal sprouting and recovery of function may obey some of the same laws. In: Cotman C (ed) Neuronal plasticity. Raven, New York, pp 73–96Google Scholar
  10. Goldberger ME, Murray M (1982) Lack of sprouting and its presence after lesions of the cat spinal cord. Brain Res 241: 227–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberger ME, Paige E (1986) Anatomical plasticity of serotonin (5HT) projections after deafferentation of the cat spinal cord. Neurosci Abstr 12: 512Google Scholar
  12. Goslow GE Jr, Reinking RM, Stuart DG (1973) The cat step cycle: hindlimb joint angles and muscle lengths during unrestrained. J Morphol 141: 1–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu CN, Chambers WW (1958) Intraspinal sprouting of dorsal root axons. Arch Neurol Psychiatr 79: 46–91Google Scholar
  14. Mendell LM, Sedivec MJ (1985) Physiological consequences of dorsal rhizotomy on the receptive field organization of dorsal horn neurons. In: Dacey RG (ed) Trauma of the central nervous system. Raven, New York, pp 235–244Google Scholar
  15. Mendell LM, Sedivec MJ, Traub RJ (1986) Response of an identified population of spinal cord neurons to partial deafferentation. In: Goldberger ME, Gorio A, Murray M (eds) Development and plasticity of the mammalian spinal cord. Liviana, Padova and Springer, New York, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  16. Murray M, Goldberger ME (1986) Replacement of synaptic terminals in lamina II and Clarke’s nucleus after unilateral dorsal rhizotomy in adult cats. J Neurosci 6: 3205–3217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Murray M, Wu L-F, Goldberger ME (1987) Spared root deafferentation of cat spinal cord: anatomical recovery. In: Pubols LM, Sessle BJ (eds) Effects of injury on trigeminal and spinal somatosensory systems. Liss, New York, pp 261–271Google Scholar
  18. Polistina D, Murray M, Goldberger ME (1987) Myelinated fibers contribute to dorsal root sprouting after partial deafferentation in rats. Neurosci Abstr 13: 166Google Scholar
  19. Prendergast J, Murray M, Goldberger ME (1980) Sprouting and reflex recovery after spinal nerve lesions in cats. Exp Neurol 73: 732–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pubols LM, Goldberger ME (1980) Recovery of function in the dorsal horn following partial deafferentation. J Neurophysiol 43: 102–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rademaker VGGJ (1931) Standing: Static reactions, equilibrium and muscle tonus, with special consideration of their retention in animals without a cerebellum. Translated by A. Musen. Arch Neurol 28: 141–163Google Scholar
  22. Rasmussen SA, Goslow GE Jr, Hannon R (1986) Kinematics of locomotion in cats with partially deafferented spinal cords: the spared-root preparation. Neurosci Lett 65: 183–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson GA, Goldberger ME (1986) Development and recovery of function in spinal kittens. Brain Res 346: 400–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaefer KP, Meyer DL (1981) Aspects of vestibular compensation in guinea pigs. In: Flohr H, Precht W (eds) Lesion-inducted plasticity in sensorimotor systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 261–280Google Scholar
  25. Tessler A, Glazer E, Artymyshyn R, Murray M, Goldberger ME (1980) Recovery of substance P in the cat spinal cord after unilateral lumbosacral deafferentation of cat spinal cord. Brain Res 191: 459–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tessler A, Himes BT, Artymyshyn R, Murray M, Goldberger ME (1981) Spinal neurons mediate return of substance P following deafferentation of cat spinal cord. Brain Res 230: 263–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tracey DJ, Walmsley B (1984) Synaptic input from identified muscle afferents to neurones of the dorsal spinocerebellar tract in cat. J Physiol (Lond) 350: 599–604Google Scholar
  28. Wilson P, Meyers DER, Snow PJ (1987) Changes in spinal circuitry in response to changes in input: an evaluation of the development and basis of contemporary theories. In: Pubols LM, Sessle BJ (eds) Effects of injury on trigeminal and spinal somatosensory systems. Liss, New York, pp 227–238Google Scholar
  29. Ungar-Sargon J, Goldberger ME ( 1987 a) Maintenance of specificity by sprouting and regenerating peripheral nerves. I. Normal variability. Brain Res 407: 117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ungar-Sargon J, Goldberger ME ( 1987 b) Maintenance of specificity by sprouting and regenerating nerves. II. Variability after lesions. Brain Res 407: 124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. Goldberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnatomyThe Medical College of Pennsylvania/EPPI DivisionPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations