MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109174714 · doi:10.1152/jn.00706.2005

Primate Upper Limb Muscles Exhibit Activity Patterns That Differ From Their Anatomical Action During a Postural Task

2005· article· en· W2109174714 on OpenAlexaff
Isaac Kurtzer, J. Andrew Pruszynski, Troy M. Herter, Stephen H. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForelimbElbowPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElbow flexionAnatomyPrimary motor cortexElectromyographyMotor controlShoulder jointMedicineMotor cortexPsychologyNeuroscienceStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined muscular activity in the primate proximal forelimb during a posture task. By applying loads selectively to the shoulder, elbow, or both joints, we observed that monoarticular shoulder and elbow muscles varied their activity with loads at the unspanned joint. Shoulder monoarticulars changed activity with elbow torque and elbow monoarticulars changed activity with shoulder torque. Due to this additional modulation, the maximal activation of monoarticular muscles was deviated from their anatomical action toward either shoulder-extension/elbow-flexion or shoulder-flexion/elbow-extension. Biarticular muscles also expressed deviations in their preferred torque direction toward either shoulder-extension/elbow-flexion or shoulder-flexion/elbow-extension. The biased distribution of preferred torque directions in proximal forelimb muscles could be modeled by the minimization of a global measure of muscle activity. Moreover, arm-related neurons of primary motor cortex exhibit a similar bias in preferred torque directions consistent with the intimate relationship between the primary motor cortex and the motor periphery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207