Operation of spinal sensorimotor circuits controlling phase durations during tied-belt and split-belt locomotion after a lateral thoracic hemisection

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study adapts a previously published model of the cat spinal locomotor network to make predictions of how phase durations of swing and stance at different treadmill speeds in tied-belt and split-belt conditions would be altered following a lateral hemisection. The simulations make several predictions that are replicated in experimental settings.

Strengths:

(1) Despite only altering the connections in the model, the model is able to replicate very well several experimental findings. This provides strong validation for the model and highlights its utility as a tool to investigate the operations of mammalian spinal locomotor networks.

(2) The study provides insights about interactions between the left and right sides of the spinal locomotor networks, and how these interactions depend on the mode of operation, as determined by speed and state of the nervous system.

(3) The writing is logical, clear, and easy to follow.

Weaknesses:

(1) Could the authors provide a statement in the methods or results to clarify whether there were any changes in synaptic weight or other model parameters of the intact model to ensure locomotor activity in the hemisected model?

(2) The authors should remind the reader what the main differences are between state-machine, flexor-driven, and classical half-center regimes (lines 77-79).

(3) There may be changes in the wiring of spinal locomotor networks after the hemisection. Yet, without applying any sort of plasticity, the model is able to replicate many of the experimental data. Based on what was experimentally replicated or not, what does the model tell us about possible sites of plasticity after hemisection?

(4) Why are the durations on the right hemisected (fast) side similar to results in the full spinal transected model (Rybak et al. 2024)? Is it because the left is in slow mode and so there is not much drive from the left side to the right side even though the latter is still receiving supraspinal drive, as opposed to in the full transection model? (lines 202-203).

(5) There is an error with probability (line 280).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is a nice article that presents interesting findings. One main concern is that I don't think the predictions from the simulation are overlaid on the animal data at any point - I understand the match is qualitative, which is fine, but even that is hard to judge without at least one figure overlaying some of the data. Second is that it's not clear how the lateral coupling strengths of the model were trained/set, so it's hard to judge how important this hemi-split-belt paradigm is. The model's predictions match the data qualitatively, which is good; but does the comparison using the hemi-split-belt paradigm not offer any corrections to the model? The discussion points to modeling plasticity after SCI, which could be good, but does that mean the fit here is so good there's no point using the data to refine?

The manuscript is well-written and interesting. The putative neural circuit mechanisms that the model uncovers are great, if they can be tested in an animal somehow.

Page 2, lines 75-6: Perhaps it belongs in the other paper on the model, but it's surprising that in the section on how the model has been revised to have different regimes of operation as speed increases, there is no reference to a lot of past literature on this idea. Just one example would be Koditschek and Full, 1999 JEB Figure 3, where they talk about exactly this idea, or similarly Holmes et al., 2006 SIAM review Figure 7, but obviously many more have put this forward over the years (Daley and Beiwener, etc). It's neat in this model to have it tied down to a detailed neural model that can be compared with the vast cat literature, but the concept of this has been talked about for at least 25+ years. Maybe a review that discusses it should be cited?

Page 2, line 88: While it makes sense to think of the sides as supraspinal vs afferent driven, respectively, what is the added insight from having them coupled laterally in this hemisection model? What does that buy you beyond complete transection (both sides no supra) compared with intact? I can see how being able to vary cycle frequencies separately of the two limbs is a good "knob" to vary when perturbing the system in order to refine the model. But there isn't a ton of context explaining how the hemi-section with split belt paradigm is important for refining the model, and therefore the science. Is it somehow importantly related to the new "regimes" of operation versus speed idea for the model?

Page 5, line 212: For the predictions from the model, a lot depends on how strong the lateral coupling of the model is, which, in turn, depends on the data the model was trained on. Were the model parameters (especially for lateral coupling of the limbs) trained on data in a context where limbs were pushed out of phase and neuronal connectivity was likely required to bring the limbs back into the same phase relationship? Because if the model had no need for lateral coupling, then it's not so surprising that the hemisected limbs behave like separate limbs, one with surpaspinal intact and one without.

Page 8, line 360: The discussion of the mechanisms (increased influence of afferents, etc) that the model reveals could be causing the changes is exciting, though I'm not sure if there is an animal model where it can be tested in vivo in a moving animal.

Page 9, line 395: There are some interesting conclusions that rely on the hemi-split-belt paradigm here.