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

Sensory Systems in the Control of Movement

2012· review· en· W2115162941 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.137
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