A Contribution of Area 5 of the Posterior Parietal Cortex to the Planning of Visually Guided Locomotion: Limb-Specific and Limb-Independent Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that area 5 of the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) contributes to the planning of visually guided gait modifications. We recorded 121 neurons from the PPC of two cats during a task in which cats needed to process visual input to step over obstacles attached to a moving treadmill belt. During unobstructed locomotion, 64/121 (53%) of cells showed rhythmic activity. During steps over the obstacles, 102/121 (84%) of cells showed a significant change of their activity. Of these, 46/102 were unmodulated during the control task. We divided the 102 task-related cells into two groups on the basis of their discharge when the limb contralateral to the recording site was the first to pass over the obstacle. One group (41/102) was characterized by a brief, phasic discharge as the lead forelimb passed over the obstacle (Step-related cells). These cells were recorded primarily from area 5a. The other group (61/102) showed a progressive increase in activity prior to the onset of the swing phase in the modified limb and frequently diverged from control at least one step cycle before the gait modification (Step-advanced cells). Most of these cells were recorded in area 5b. In both groups, some cells maintained a fixed relationship to the activity of the contralateral forelimb regardless of which limb was the first to pass over the obstacle (limb-specific cells), whereas others changed their phase of activity so that they were always related to activity of the first limb to pass over the obstacle, either contralateral or ipsilateral (limb-independent cells). Limb-independent cells were more common among the Step-advanced cell population. We suggest that both populations of cells contribute to the gait modification and that the discharge characteristics of the Step-advanced cells are compatible with a contribution to the planning of the gait modification.
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".