A Reevaluation of the Inverse Dynamic Model for Eye Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To construct an appropriate motor command from signals that provide a representation of desired action, the nervous system must take into account the dynamic characteristics of the motor plant to be controlled. In the oculomotor system, signals specifying desired eye velocity are thought to be transformed into motor commands by an inverse dynamic model of the eye plant that is shared for all types of eye movements and implemented by a weighted combination of eye velocity and position signals. Neurons in the prepositus hypoglossi and adjacent medial vestibular nuclei (PH-BT neurons) were traditionally thought to encode the "eye position" component of this inverse model. However, not only are PH-BT responses inconsistent with this theoretical role, but compensatory eye movement responses to translation do not show evidence for processing by a common inverse dynamic model. Prompted by these discrepancies between theoretical notions and experimental observations, we reevaluated these concepts using multiple-frequency rotational and translational head movements. Compatible with the notion of a common inverse model, we show that PH-BT responses are unique among all premotor cell types in bearing a consistent relationship to the motor output during eye movements driven by different sensory stimuli. However, because their responses are dynamically identical to those of motoneurons, PH-BT neurons do not simply represent an internal component of the inverse model, but rather its output. They encode and distribute an estimate of the motor command, a signal critical for accurate motor execution and learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".