Sławińska et al. questioned the involvement of supraspinal centers in restoring locomotion after multisystem neuroprosthetic training in rats with paralyzing spinal cord injury. Here, we clarify misconceptions and present additional results illustrating the robust influence of brain input on electrochemically enabled spinal circuitries. We reassert that our intervention reestablished supraspinal control over hindlimb locomotion in paralyzed rats.A century ago, Sherrington reported the unexpected ability of isolated spinal circuits to generate rhythmic leg movements in response to sensory input (1). Since this seminal observation, spinal locomotion has been described in various species and conditions (2). We exploited this concept to design an electrochemical neuroprosthesis (3) and training procedures (4, 5) that restored full weight-bearing locomotion in rats with a complete spinal cord injury (SCI). Sławińska et al., as well as many others (6, 7), reported comparable observations in mice (8), rats (9), and cats (10) over the past three decades.These hindlimb movements, however, remain involuntary. In spinal animals, quadrupedal hindlimb locomotion occurs in the complete absence of supraspinal input and is controlled via sensory ensembles (5,11,12). For example, the intact forelimbs initiate locomotion and sustain propulsion during quadrupedal gait, which generates sensory feedback in the hindlimbs due to biomechanical coupling. Like the rear person in a pantomime horse, lumbosacral circuitries can recognize these task-specific sensory states and use this information to coordinate complex movements. In a recent study (11), we demonstrated that, as early as 10 days after a paralyzing SCI, quadrupedally positioned rats produced weightbearing locomotion, climbed a staircase, and steered in a curve during electrochemically enabled motor states. We did not report these results in our Science paper (13) because lumbosacral circuits control these seemingly complex quadrupedal movements without contribution from supraspinal centers. Therefore, they presented no novelty in the framework of this study. Indeed, rats with the same SCI were incapable of initiating bipedal walking [ figure 1C and movie S1 in (13)]. They also failed to sustain robotically initiated locomotion [figure S6 in (13)]. Moreover, when the robot moved nontrained rats toward a staircase, the isolated spinal circuits failed to adjust gait movements, which led to a dramatic collapse against the staircase. Together, these results demonstrate that the absence of supraspinal input led to the inability to initiate, sustain, and modulate bipedal hindlimb locomotion overground. They also reveal that quadrupedal locomotor testing yields inconclusive results and that bipedal walking is a more appropriate paradigm to uncover the ability of supraspinal centers to functionally access lumbosacral circuits.In (13), we described a type of motor control that is radically different from automated spinal stepping: that is, the recovery of supraspinal control over a rang...