Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each somatic motor cortical area receives input from non-motor cortical areas and from the basal ganglia. Each area projects to all of the other areas, and each area also projects directly to the spinal cord. There is a limited understanding of how these different motor areas interact, and how mappings from cognitive goals to coordinated motor behaviour are established. The role of the basal ganglia afferents is also enigmatic. While the basal ganglia sometimes have a profound influence on movement, the ablation of their output nuclei does not cause striking motor symptoms. We present the hypothesis that the basal ganglia obtain rough sketches of effective motor patterns via reinforcement learning, and that they subsequently drive the cortex in these patterns, such that the patterns are gradually transferred to the cortex via supervised learning. Such a transfer mechanism may account for a number of phenomena including: 1) the way in which activity migrates between structures as expertise develops in some motor tasks; 2) the subtlety of motor symptoms following ablation of basal ganglia output nuclei (as opposed to the striking motor symptoms of basal ganglia diseases); and 3) changes in motor cortical maps in Parkinson's disease. The feasibility of this mechanism is tested with a cortico-basal ganglia model. The model produces appropriate motor patterns given sensory and goal-related inputs, and produces progressively more sophisticated patterns of movement as it matures. On the basis of this model, we predict that patients should have difficulty learning novel, complex movement patterns following ablation of basal ganglia output nuclei.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".