Corticospinal and reticulospinal contacts on cervical commissural and long descending propriospinal neurons in the adult rat spinal cord; evidence for powerful reticulospinal connections

Descending systems have a crucial role in the selection of motor output patterns by influencing the activity of interneuronal networks in the spinal cord. Commissural interneurons that project to the contralateral grey matter are key components of such networks as they coordinate left-right motor activity of fore and hind-limbs. The aim of this study was to determine if corticospinal (CST) and reticulospinal (RST) neurons make significant numbers of axonal contacts with cervical commissural interneurons. Two classes of commissural neurons were analysed: 1) local commissural interneurons (LCINs) in segments C4-5; 2) long descending propriospinal neurons (LDPNs) projecting from C4 to the rostral lumbar cord. Commissural interneurons were labelled with Fluorogold and CST and RST axons were labelled by injecting the b subunit of cholera toxin in the forelimb area of the primary somatosensory cortex or the medial longitudinal fasciculus respectively. The results show that LCINs and LDPNs receive few contacts from CST terminals but large numbers of contacts are formed by RST terminals. Use of vesicular glutamate and vesicular GABA transporters revealed that both types of cell received about 80% excitatory and 20% inhibitory RST contacts. Therefore the CST appears to have a minimal influence on LCINs and LDPNs but the RST has a powerful influence. This suggests that left-right activity in the rat spinal cord is not influenced directly via CST systems but is strongly controlled by the RST pathway. Many RST neurons have monosynaptic input from corticobulbar pathways therefore this pathway may provide an indirect route from the cortex to commissural systems. The cortico-reticulospinal-commissural system may also contribute to functional recovery following damage to the CST as it has the capacity to deliver information from the cortex to the spinal cord in the absence of direct CST input

X-Band Rapid-Scan EPR

The advantages of rapid-scan EPR relative to CW and pulse techniques for samples with long longitudinal relaxation time T1 (Ns0 defects in diamond, N@C60, and amorphous hydrogenated silicon), heterogeneous samples (crystalline 1:1 α,γ-bisdiphenylene-β-phenylallyl (BDPA):benzene), lossy samples (aqueous nitroxyl radicals), and transient radicals (5-tert-butoxycarbonyl-5-methyl-1-pyrroline-N-oxide (BMPO)-superoxide adduct) were studied. For samples with long relaxation times, CW (continuous wave) EPR is challenging due to power saturation and distortions from passage effects. In rapid-scan EPR, the field is swept through resonance in a time that is short relative to T2. In rapid-scan EPR, the magnetic field is on resonance for a short time relative to CW EPR. Because of this, the energy absorbed by the spins, for the same microwave B1, is less than in conventional CW spectra, and the signal does not saturate as readily. For samples with long electron relaxation times, pulse techniques can also be challenging, particularly if T2 is long and T2* is short. Rapid-scan EPR is a powerful alternative to CW and pulse EPR because it is a straight-forward technique that does not require the high power of pulse EPR. For the samples studied, improvements in signal-to-noise ranging from factors of 10 to 250 were observed. Rapid-scan can also be used to extract relaxation information from a sample. The rapid-scan spectra for lithium phthalocyanine (LiPc) and 15N-PDT (4-oxo-2,2,6,6-tetra-perdeuteromethyl-piperidinyl-15N-oxyl-d16) were simulated to determine T2. The extraction of T2 from the rapid-scan spectra of BDPA was also attempted. Through our difficulty in simulating the rapid-scan spectra of BDPA, we realized that commercial BDPA was not a homogeneous sample. The experiments studying BDPA demonstrated that rapid-scan experiments can give insight into the relaxation of a sample that might not otherwise be evident with conventional CW EPR. Finally, rapid-scan EPR at X-band was applied to spin trapping experiments. Superoxide was generated by the reaction of xanthine oxidase and hypoxanthine and trapped with BMPO. Spin trapping with 5-tert-butoxycarbonyl-5-methyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide (BMPO) to form BMPO-OOH adduct converts the short-lived superoxide into a more stable spin adduct. The detection limit for spin-trapped superoxide was compared between CW and rapid-scan EPR. The signal-to-noise ratio was more than 40 times greater for rapid-scan than for CW EPR. We also demonstrated detection of superoxide produced by Enterococcus faecalis at rates that are too low for detection by CW EPR

A Comparison of Eighth Grade General Education Students’ ELA Scores in Co-teaching and Regular Classrooms

This causal comparative, ex post facto quantitative study compared the Georgia Milestones English Language Arts (ELA) scores of 8th-grade general education students taught in a co-teaching classroom compared with scores of students taught in a regular classroom. The research focused on a comparison of the academic performance of two groups on statewide standardized assessments in ELA over 2 consecutive years, 2017 and 2018. The study contributes to the limited research regarding student achievement of general education students in co-teaching classrooms. This study was based on Vygotsky’s social development theory. The research questions examined the differences in the academic performance of general education students taught in a co-teaching classroom over a 2-year period, 2017 to 2018. The subjects in this study comprised four 8th-grade English Language Arts classes, n = 238: 125 general education students taught in a co-teaching classroom with 2 certified teachers, and 113 general education students taught in a regular education classroom with one certified teacher. The statewide Georgia Milestones ELA scores from 2017 and 2018 were analyzed using t-tests. The results revealed no statistically significant differences in the scores of the 2 groups in either of the academic years examined, and the null hypotheses were failed to be rejected

Don’t Blame \u3cem\u3eCrawford\u3c/em\u3e or \u3cem\u3eBryant\u3c/em\u3e: The Confrontation Clause Mess Is All \u3cem\u3eDavis\u3c/em\u3e’s Fault

In Michigan v. Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him. In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v. Washington. Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed at the ongoing emergency. As such, the hearsay statement was nontestimonial and, accordingly, outside the protection of the Confrontation Clause. Bryant, was roundly (and deservedly) criticized by all commentators, who unanimously accused the Court of making a shambles of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. To an extent, Crawford also shared the commentator’s blame. But for the authors of this article, it is the Court’s Confrontation Clause analysis in Davis v. Washington, a case involving a 911 call, which is truly to blame for the debacle that is Bryant; for Davis carelessly equated “nontestimonial” with a decontextualized, commonplace notion of an “ongoing emergency.” That was the mistake that led to Bryant. As this article will demonstrate, the issue for purposes of Confrontation Clause analysis in cases like Davis and Bryant is not whether or not there exists an ongoing emergency in some general sense; but rather whose emergency it is. If the emergency is the government’s, then any statements made by citizens to help the government address that emergency are testimonial. If the emergency is one in which a citizen is seeking the government’s help (regardless of whether or not it’s also the government’s emergency), any statements by the citizen are nontestimonial

Don’t Blame \u3cem\u3eCrawford\u3c/em\u3e or \u3cem\u3eBryant\u3c/em\u3e: The Confrontation Clause Mess Is All \u3cem\u3eDavis\u3c/em\u3e’s Fault

In Michigan v. Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him. In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v. Washington. Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed at the ongoing emergency. As such, the hearsay statement was nontestimonial and, accordingly, outside the protection of the Confrontation Clause. Bryant, was roundly (and deservedly) criticized by all commentators, who unanimously accused the Court of making a shambles of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. To an extent, Crawford also shared the commentator’s blame. But for the authors of this article, it is the Court’s Confrontation Clause analysis in Davis v. Washington, a case involving a 911 call, which is truly to blame for the debacle that is Bryant; for Davis carelessly equated “nontestimonial” with a decontextualized, commonplace notion of an “ongoing emergency.” That was the mistake that led to Bryant. As this article will demonstrate, the issue for purposes of Confrontation Clause analysis in cases like Davis and Bryant is not whether or not there exists an ongoing emergency in some general sense; but rather whose emergency it is. If the emergency is the government’s, then any statements made by citizens to help the government address that emergency are testimonial. If the emergency is one in which a citizen is seeking the government’s help (regardless of whether or not it’s also the government’s emergency), any statements by the citizen are nontestimonial

“I’ve Never Told Anyone”: A Qualitative Analysis of Interviews With College Women Who Experienced Sexual Assault and Remained Silent

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the decision made by some college women who are raped to tell no one. In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 college women between the ages of 19-24 who had never shared their sexual assault with anyone prior to speaking to the researchers. This study provides a systematic investigation of the factors underlying women’s decisions to remain silent. The knowledge and understanding gained from these in-depth interviews offer insight for individuals and institutions to support these students and for the development of future efforts encouraging women survivors to tell someone