MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973698089 · doi:10.1152/jn.00241.2006

Sequential Activation of Muscle Synergies During Locomotion in the Intact Cat as Revealed by Cluster Analysis and Direct Decomposition

2006· article· en· W1973698089 on OpenAlexaff
Nedialko I. Krouchev, John Kalaska, Trevor Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForelimbNeuroscienceHindlimbTreadmillSpinal cordMotor controlComputer scienceBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During goal-directed locomotion, descending signals from supraspinal structures act through spinal interneuron pathways to effect modifications of muscle activity that are appropriate to the task requirements. Recent studies using decomposition methods suggest that this control might be facilitated by activating synergies organized at the level of the spinal cord. However, it is difficult to directly relate these mathematically defined synergies to the patterns of electromyographic activity observed in the original recordings. To address this issue, we have used a novel cluster analysis to make a detailed study of the organization of the synergistic patterns of muscle activity observed in the fore- and hindlimb during treadmill locomotion. The results show that the activity of a large number of forelimb muscles (26 bursts of activity from 18 muscles) can be grouped into 11 clusters on the basis of synchronous co-activation. Nine (9/11) of these clusters defined muscle activity during the swing phase of locomotion; these clusters were distributed in a sequential manner and were related to discrete behavioral events. A comparison with the synergies identified by linear decomposition methods showed some striking similarities between the synergies identified by the different methods. In the hindlimb, a simpler organization was observed, and a sequential activation of muscles similar to that observed in the forelimb during swing was less clear. We suggest that this organization of synergistic muscles provides a means by which descending signals could provide the detailed control of different muscle groups that is necessary for the flexible control of multi-articular movements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations159
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207