After complete spinal cord injury, mammals, including mice, rats and cats, recover hindlimb locomotion with treadmill training. The premise is that sensory cues consistent with locomotion reorganize spinal sensorimotor circuits. Here, we show that hindlimb standing and locomotion recover after spinal transection in cats without task-specific training. Spinal-transected cats recovered full weight bearing standing and locomotion after five weeks of rhythmic manual stimulation of triceps surae muscles (non-specific training) and without any intervention. Moreover, cats modulated locomotor speed and performed split-belt locomotion six weeks after spinal transection, functions that were not trained or tested in the weeks prior. This indicates that spinal networks controlling standing and locomotion and their interactions with sensory feedback from the limbs remain largely intact after complete spinal cord injury. We conclude that standing and locomotor recovery is due to the return of neuronal excitability within spinal sensorimotor circuits that do not require task-specific activity-dependent plasticity.

Key points The control of locomotion is thought to be generated by activating groups of muscles that perform similar actions, which are termed muscle synergies. Here, we investigated if muscle synergies are controlled at the level of the spinal cord. We did this by comparing muscle activity in the legs of cats during stepping on a treadmill before and after a complete spinal transection that abolishes commands from the brain. We show that muscle synergies were maintained following spinal transection, validating the concept that muscle synergies for locomotion are primarily controlled by circuits of neurons within the spinal cord. Abstract Locomotion is thought to involve the sequential activation of functional modules or muscle synergies. Here, we tested the hypothesis that muscle synergies for locomotion are organized within the spinal cord. We recorded bursts of muscle activity in the same cats (n = 7) before and after spinal transection during tied‐belt locomotion at three speeds and split‐belt locomotion at three left–right speed differences. We identified seven muscles synergies before (intact state) and after (spinal state) spinal transection. The muscles comprising the different synergies were the same in the intact and spinal states as well as at different speeds or left–right speed differences. However, there were some significant shifts in the onsets and offsets of certain synergies as a function of state, speed and left–right speed differences. The most notable difference between the intact and spinal states was a change in the timing between the knee flexor and hip flexor muscle synergies. In the intact state, the knee flexor synergy preceded the hip flexor synergy, whereas in the spinal state both synergies occurred concurrently. Afferent inputs also appear important for the expression of some muscle synergies, specifically those involving biphasic patterns of muscle activity. We propose that muscle synergies for locomotion are primarily organized within the spinal cord, although their full expression and proper timing requires inputs from supraspinal structures and/or limb afferents.

In humans, gait adapts to prolonged walking on a split-belt treadmill, where one leg steps faster than the other, by gradually restoring the symmetry of interlimb kinematic variables, such as double support periods and step lengths, and by reducing muscle activity (EMG, electromyography). The adaptation is also characterized by reversing the asymmetry of interlimb variables observed during the early split-belt period when returning to tied-belt locomotion, termed an after-effect. To determine if cats adapt to prolonged split-belt locomotion and to assess if spinal locomotor circuits participate in the adaptation, we measured interlimb variables and EMG in intact and spinal-transected cats before, during and after 10 min of split-belt locomotion. In spinal cats, only the hindlimbs performed stepping with the forelimbs stationary. In intact and spinal cats, step lengths and double support periods were, on average, symmetric, during tied-belt locomotion. They became asymmetric during split-belt locomotion and remained asymmetric throughout the split-belt period. Upon returning to tied-belt locomotion, symmetry was immediately restored. In intact cats, the mean EMG amplitude of hindlimb extensors increased during split-belt locomotion and remained increased throughout the split-belt period, whereas in spinal cats, EMG amplitude did not change. Therefore, the results indicate that the locomotor pattern of cats does not adapt to prolonged split-belt locomotion, suggesting an important physiological difference in the control of locomotion between cats and humans. We propose that restoring left-right symmetry is not required to maintain balance during prolonged asymmetric locomotion in the cat, a quadruped, as opposed to human bipedal locomotion.

Mechanically stimulating the dorsal lumbar region inhibits locomotion and reduces weight support during standing in rabbits and cats. However, how this inhibitory effect from the lumbar skin is mediated is poorly understood. Here we evaluated the effect of mechanically stimulating (vibration or pinch) the dorsal lumbar region on short-latency (8- to 13-ms onset) cutaneous reflex responses, evoked by electrically stimulating the superficial peroneal or distal tibial nerves, in seven adult cats with a low thoracic spinal transection (spinal cats). Cutaneous reflexes were evoked before, during, and after mechanical stimulation of the dorsal lumbar region. We found that mechanically stimulating the lumbar region by vibration or manual pinch abolished alternating bursts of activity between flexors and extensors initiated by nerve stimulation. The activity of extensor muscles was abolished bilaterally, whereas the activity of some ipsilateral flexor muscles was sustained during vibration/pinch. Mechanically stimulating the lumbar region increased ipsilateral and contralateral short-latency excitatory responses evoked by cutaneous inputs, a phenomenon that was generalized to muscles crossing different joints and located in different limbs. Our results indicate that the inhibitory effect on locomotion and weight support is not mediated by reducing cutaneous reflex gain and instead points to an inhibition of central pattern-generating circuitry, particularly the extensor component. The results provide greater insight into interactions between different types of somatosensory inputs within spinal motor circuits. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Vibration or pinch of the lumbar region in spinal-transected cats abolished alternating bursts of activity between flexors and extensors initiated by nerve stimulation. Mechanically stimulating the lumbar region increased ipsilateral and contralateral short-latency excitatory responses evoked by cutaneous inputs in hindlimb muscles. Sensory inputs from mechanoreceptors of the lumbar region do not mediate their inhibitory effect on locomotion and weight support by reducing the gain of short-latency excitatory cutaneous reflexes from the foot.

Animal locomotion requires changing direction, from forward to backward. Here, we tested the hypothesis that sensorimotor circuits within the spinal cord generate backward locomotion and adjust it to task demands. We collected kinematic and electromyography (EMG) data during forward and backward locomotion at different treadmill speeds before and after complete spinal transection in six adult cats (three males and three females). After spinal transection, five/six cats performed backward locomotion, which required tonic somatosensory input in the form of perineal stimulation. One spinal cat performed forward locomotion but not backward locomotion while two others stepped backward but not forward. Spatiotemporal adjustments to increasing speed were similar in intact and spinal cats during backward locomotion and strategies were similar to forward locomotion, with shorter cycle and stance durations and longer stride lengths. Patterns of muscle activations, including muscle synergies, were similar for forward and backward locomotion in spinal cats. Indeed, we identified five muscle synergies that were similar during forward and backward locomotion. Lastly, spinal cats also stepped backward on a split-belt treadmill, with the left and right hindlimbs stepping at different speeds. Therefore, our results show that spinal sensorimotor circuits generate backward locomotion but require additional excitability compared with forward locomotion. Similar strategies for speed modulation and similar patterns of muscle activations and muscle synergies during forward and backward locomotion are consistent with a shared spinal locomotor network, with sensory feedback from the limbs controlling the direction.