Coordination strategies for limb forces during weight-bearing locomotion in normal rats, and in rats spinalized as neonates.

Some rats spinally transected as neonates (ST rats) achieve weight-supporting independent locomotion. The mechanisms of coordinated hind-limb weight support in such rats are not well understood. To examine these we compared ST rats (with better than 60% of weight supported steps) and normal rats that were trained to cross an instrumented runway. Ground reaction forces, coordination of hind-limb and forelimb forces and the motions of the center of pressure (CoP) were assessed. Normal rats crossed the runway with a diagonal trot. On average hind-limbs bore about 80% of the vertical load carried by forelimbs (45% body weight on hind-limbs 55% on forelimbs), although this varied. Forelimbs and hind-limbs acted synergistically to generate decelerative and propulsive rostrocaudal forces, which averaged 15% of body weight with maximums of 50%. Lateral forces were very small (<8% of body weight). Center of pressure progressed in jumps along a straight line with mean lateral deviations <1 cm. ST rats hind-limbs bore about 60% of the vertical load of forelimbs (37% body weight on hind-limbs, 63% on forelimbs), significantly less compared to intact rats ( P < 0.05). ST rats showed similar mean rostrocaudal forces, but with significantly larger maximum fluctuations of up to 80% of body weight ( P < 0.05). Joint force-plate recordings showed forelimbs and hind-limb rostrocaudal forces in ST rats were opposing and significantly different from intact rats ( P < 0.05). Lateral forces were ~20% of body weight and significantly larger than in normal rats ( P < 0.05). Center of pressure zig-zagged, with mean lateral deviations of ~2 cm and a significantly larger range ( P < 0.05). The haunches were also observed to roll more than normal rats. The locomotor strategy of injured rats using limbs in opposition was presumably less efficient but their complex gait was statically stable. Because forelimbs and hind-limbs acted in opposition, the trunk was held compressed. Force coordination was likely managed largely by the voluntary control in forelimbs and trunk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]