Multimodal Integration of Self-Motion Cues in the Vestibular System: Active versus Passive Translations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to keep track of where we are going as we navigate through our environment requires knowledge of our ongoing location and orientation. In response to passively applied motion, the otolith organs of the vestibular system encode changes in the velocity and direction of linear self-motion (i.e., heading). When self-motion is voluntarily generated, proprioceptive and motor efference copy information is also available to contribute to the brain's internal representation of current heading direction and speed. However to date, how the brain integrates these extra-vestibular cues with otolith signals during active linear self-motion remains unknown. Here, to address this question, we compared the responses of macaque vestibular neurons during active and passive translations. Single-unit recordings were made from a subgroup of neurons at the first central stage of sensory processing in the vestibular pathways involved in postural control and the computation of self-motion perception. Neurons responded far less robustly to otolith stimulation during self-generated than passive head translations. Yet, the mechanism underlying the marked cancellation of otolith signals did not affect other characteristics of neuronal responses (i.e., baseline firing rate, tuning ratio, orientation of maximal sensitivity vector). Transiently applied perturbations during active motion further established that an otolith cancellation signal was only gated in conditions where proprioceptive sensory feedback matched the motor-based expectation. Together our results have important implications for understanding the brain's ability to ensure accurate postural and motor control, as well as perceptual stability, during active self-motion.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".