Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 641

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Rotarod Test: An Evaluation of Its Effectiveness in Assessing Motor Deficits Following Traumatic Brain Injury

HAMM, ROBERT J., PIKE, BRIAN R., O'DELL, DIANNE M., LYETH, BRUCE G., JENKINS, LARRY W.·1994·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

The purpose of the present experiment was to examine the effectiveness of a modified rotarod test in detecting motor deficits following mild and moderate central fluid percussion brain injury. In addition, this investigation compared the performance of the rotarod task with two other commonly used measures of motor function after brain injury (beam-balance and beam-walking latencies). Rats were either injured with a mild (n = 14) or moderate (n = 8) level of fluid percussion injury or were surgically prepared but not injured (n = 8). All rats were assessed on all tasks for 5 days following their respective treatments. Results revealed that both the mild and moderate injury levels produced significant deficits in the ability of the animals to perform the rotarod task. Performance on the beam-balance and beam-walking tasks were not significantly impaired at the mild injury level. It was only at the moderate injury level that the beam-balance and beam-walking tasks detected deficits in motor performance. This result demonstrated that the rotarod task was a sensitive index of injury-induced motor dysfunction following even mild fluid percussion injury. A power analysis of the three tasks indicated that statistically significant group differences could be obtained with the rotarod task with much smaller sample sizes than with the beam-balance and beam-walking tasks. Performance on the rotarod, beam-walk, and beam-balance tasks were compared and evaluated by a multivariate stepdown analysis (multiple analysis of variance followed by univariate analyses of covariance). This analysis indicated that the rotarod task measures aspects of motor impairment that are not assessed by either the beam-balance or beam-walking latency. These findings suggest that compared to the beam-balance and beam-walking tasks, the rotarod task is a more sensitive and efficient index for assessing motor impairment produced by brain injury.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/neu.1994.11.187

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 641

Metadata

Authors
HAMM, R. J., PIKE, B. R., O'DELL, D. M., LYETH, B. G., & JENKINS, L. W.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
1994-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
187-196
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W1984305500
Cited by
641
References
1
FWCI
3.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Rotarod Test: An Evaluation of Its Effectiveness in Assessing Motor Deficits Following Traumatic Brain Injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/neu.1994.11.187
The paper
HAMM, R. J., PIKE, B. R., O'DELL, D. M., LYETH, B. G., & JENKINS, L. W. (1994). The Rotarod Test: An Evaluation of Its Effectiveness in Assessing Motor Deficits Following Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Neurotrauma. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.1994.11.187

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.