Sensory-evoked perturbations of locomotor activity by sparse sensory input: a computational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory inputs from muscle, cutaneous, and joint afferents project to the spinal cord, where they are able to affect ongoing locomotor activity. Activation of sensory input can initiate or prolong bouts of locomotor activity depending on the identity of the sensory afferent activated and the timing of the activation within the locomotor cycle. However, the mechanisms by which afferent activity modifies locomotor rhythm and the distribution of sensory afferents to the spinal locomotor networks have not been determined. Considering the many sources of sensory inputs to the spinal cord, determining this distribution would provide insights into how sensory inputs are integrated to adjust ongoing locomotor activity. We asked whether a sparsely distributed set of sensory inputs could modify ongoing locomotor activity. To address this question, several computational models of locomotor central pattern generators (CPGs) that were mechanistically diverse and generated locomotor-like rhythmic activity were developed. We show that sensory inputs restricted to a small subset of the network neurons can perturb locomotor activity in the same manner as seen experimentally. Furthermore, we show that an architecture with sparse sensory input improves the capacity to gate sensory information by selectively modulating sensory channels. These data demonstrate that sensory input to rhythm-generating networks need not be extensively distributed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".