Integration of Canal and Otolith Inputs by Central Vestibular Neurons Is Subadditive for Both Active and Passive Self-Motion: Implication for Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the neural encoding of vestibular information is studied by applying either passive rotations or translations in isolation. However, natural vestibular stimuli are typically more complex. During everyday life, our self-motion is generally not restricted to one dimension, but rather comprises both rotational and translational motion that will simultaneously stimulate receptors in the semicircular canals and otoliths. In addition, natural self-motion is the result of self-generated and externally generated movements. However, to date, it remains unknown how information about rotational and translational components of self-motion is integrated by vestibular pathways during active and/or passive motion. Accordingly, here, we compared the responses of neurons at the first central stage of vestibular processing to rotation, translation, and combined motion. Recordings were made in alert macaques from neurons in the vestibular nuclei involved in postural control and self-motion perception. In response to passive stimulation, neurons did not combine canal and otolith afferent information linearly. Instead, inputs were subadditively integrated with a weighting that was frequency dependent. Although canal inputs were more heavily weighted at low frequencies, the weighting of otolith input increased with frequency. In response to active stimulation, neuronal modulation was significantly attenuated (∼ 70%) relative to passive stimulation for rotations and translations and even more profoundly attenuated for combined motion due to subadditive input integration. Together, these findings provide insights into neural computations underlying the integration of semicircular canal and otolith inputs required for accurate posture and motor control, as well as perceptual stability, during everyday life.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".