Descending Corticospinal Control of Intersegmental Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To make an accurate movement, the CNS has to overcome the inherent complexities of the multijoint limb. For example, interaction torques arise when motion of individual arm segments propagates to adjacent segments causing their movement without any muscle contractions. Since these passive joint torques significantly add to the overall torques generated by active muscular contractions, they must be taken into account during planning or execution of goal-directed movements. We investigated the role of the corticospinal tract in compensating for the interaction torques during arm movements in humans. Twelve subjects reached to visual targets with their arm supported by a robotic exoskeleton. Reaching to one target was accompanied by interaction torques that assisted the movement, while reaching to the other target was accompanied by interaction torques that resisted the movement. Corticospinal excitability was assessed at different times during movement using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the upper-arm region of M1 (primary motor cortex). We found that TMS responses in shoulder monoarticular and elbow-shoulder biarticular muscles changed together with the interaction torques during movements in which the interaction torques were resistive. In contrast, TMS responses did not correlate with assistive interaction torques or with co-contraction. This suggests that the descending motor command includes compensation for passive limb dynamics. Furthermore, our results suggest that compensation for interaction torques involves the biarticular muscles, which span both shoulder and elbow joints and are in a biomechanically advantageous position to provide such compensation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".