Figure 1.
Representative photographs of a brain slice passing through the lesioned striatum.
Note the preservation of the corpus callosum (a), the dilation of the lateral ventricle (b) and the cavities within the striatum (c) of the lesioned side (A) as compared to the unlesioned site (B) Staining: cresyl violet; scale bars for the top and the bottom photographs are 350 and 500 µm, respectively.
Figure 2.
Effect of the lesion on timing and length parameters.
A) duration of the stride, the stance and swing phases, B) stride length, C) relationship between the stride length and the stance phase duration after lesion. The parameters were measured before lesion (BL) and up to 60 days after lesion from the ipsilesional and contralesional forelimbs (IFL and CFL) and hindlimbs (IHL and CHL). The stride length was plotted against the corresponding stance phase duration. Values are means±SD, * different from BL values (P<0.025).
Figure 3.
Effect of the lesion on joint angle values of the contralesional limbs.
The solid and dashed lines correspond to the maximal and minimal values, respectively. The parameters were measured during the stance and swing phases before lesion (BL) and up to 60 days after lesion. Values are means±SD, * different from BL values (P<0.025).
Figure 4.
Effect of the lesion on mean values of the joint angle positions.
A and C) angular excursion, the solid and dashed lines correspond to values measured before and at day 60 after lesion, respectively. The phases of the locomotor cycle were normalized (the stance phase in grey), * difference between pre- and post-lesion values (P<0.025), B and D) corresponding stick figures of one complete step cycle (stance ad swing). Horizontal arrows indicate the direction of the movement, downward arrows foot contact and upward arrows foot lift.
Figure 5.
Effect of the lesion on paw placement in the frontal plane and head and body orientation.
A) paw placement of forelimbs, B) paw placement of the hindlimbs, C) horizontal head-on-trunk position, D) the lateral shift of the body. Positive values indicate deviation towards the contralesional side and negative values towards the ipsilesional side. IFL, IHL = ipsilesional forelimb, hindlimb; CFL, CHL = contralesional forelimb, hindlimb. Empty bars represent pre-lesion values and black bars post-lesion values (from day 4 to 60 post-lesion). Values are means±SD, * different from pre-lesion values (P<0.025).
Figure 6.
Obstacle avoidance-related parameters.
A) before lesion, rats never touch the obstacle and used a strategy in which the first (leading) hindlimb (limb 3) to step over obstacle is always ipsilateral to the leading forelimb (limb 1), B) when the contralesional leading forelimb (limb 1) is placed farther away from the front of the obstacle, it steps on the obstacle (unsuccessfull crossing). The ipsilesional trailed forelimb (limb 2) crosses over obstacle normaly whereas the contralesional leading hindlimb (limb 3) either steps on the obstacle or, crosses over obstacle normally with or without an extrastep before crossing (bottom panel), C) when pre-obstacle distance of the contralesional leading forelimb is not different from pre-lesion values, this limb performs obstacle crossing normally (successful crossing). In this situation, the trailed forelimb (limb 2) is placed further behind the obstacle. D) Pre-lesion limb trajectory for a representative rat, E and F) pre-obstacle distances of the forelimbs (E) and the hindlimbs (F) in situation in which the contralesional forelimb badly performs obstacle crossing. * different from BL (before lesion) values (P<0.025). Values of pre- and post-obstacle distances (cm) are mean±SD, in B and C, values correspond to those measured at day 60 post-lesion.
Figure 7.
Position of the reflective markers and kinematics parameters in rats.
A and B) five markers were placed on each hindlimb, four markers on each forelimb and four markers (1 to 4) on the back, C) the paw placement of the ipsilesional and contralesional hindlimb (IHL, CHL) in the frontal plane was assessed from the position at toe off of the MCP marker (marker i) on the Z-axis (mediolateral) with respect to the Y-axis (vertical) that passed through the hip marker (marker f), D) the horizontal head-on-trunk position was assessed from the roll angle, i.e. the angle between the straight line passing through the dorsal markers 1 and 2 and that passing through the dorsal markers 3 and 4, E) the lateral tilt of the body was assessed from the angle between the plane (in grey) passing through the two hip markers (f) and the two shoulder markers (a) and the horizontal plane of the laboratory (not indicated).