MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural Adaptation in the Generation of Rhythmic Behavior

2000· review· en· W2120261865 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Physiology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral pattern generatorNeuroscienceFlexibility (engineering)RhythmMotor systemAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceCoupling (piping)Sensory systemBiologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor systems can adapt rapidly to changes in external conditions and to switching of internal goals. They can also adapt slowly in response to training, alterations in the mechanics of the system, and any changes in the system resulting from injury. This article reviews the mechanisms underlying short- and long-term adaptation in rhythmic motor systems. The neuronal networks underlying the generation of rhythmic motor patterns (central pattern generators; CPGs) are extremely flexible. Neuromodulators, central commands, and afferent signals all influence the pattern produced by a CPG by altering the cellular and synaptic properties of individual neurons and the coupling between different populations of neurons. This flexibility allows the generation of a variety of motor patterns appropriate for the mechanical requirements of different forms of a behavior. The matching of motor output to mechanical requirements depends on the capacity of pattern-generating networks to adapt to slow changes in body mechanics and persistent errors in performance. Afferent feedback from body and limb proprioceptors likely plays an important role in driving these long-term adaptive processes.

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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.252 · 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