MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115162941 · doi:10.1002/cphy.c100086

Sensory Systems in the Control of Movement

2012· review· en· W2115162941 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Procházka, P H Ellaway

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive physiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsSensory systemNeuroscienceSomatosensory systemMovement (music)Focus (optics)Mechanism (biology)Motor controlCentral pattern generatorCommunicationMuscle spindlePsychologyComputer scienceBiologyRhythmMedicineAfferentPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal movement is immensely varied, from the simplest reflexive responses to the most complex, dexterous voluntary tasks. Here, we focus on the control of movement in mammals, including humans. First, the sensory inputs most closely implicated in controlling movement are reviewed, with a focus on somatosensory receptors. The response properties of the large muscle receptors are examined in detail. The role of sensory input in the control of movement is then discussed, with an emphasis on the control of locomotion. The interaction between central pattern generators and sensory input, in particular in relation to stretch reflexes, timing, and pattern forming neuronal networks is examined. It is proposed that neural signals related to bodily velocity form the basic descending command that controls locomotion through specific and well-characterized relationships between muscle activation, step cycle phase durations, and biomechanical outcomes. Sensory input is crucial in modulating both the timing and pattern forming parts of this mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations97
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive physiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207