Complex Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Upper-Limb Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correlations between neural activity in primary motor cortex (M1) and arm kinematics have recently been shown to be temporally extensive and spatially complex. These results provide a sophisticated account of M1 processing and suggest that M1 neurons encode high-level movement trajectories, termed "pathlets." However, interpreting pathlets is difficult because the mapping between M1 activity and arm kinematics is indirect: M1 activity can generate movement only via spinal circuitry and the substantial complexities of the musculoskeletal system. We hypothesized that filter-like complexities of the musculoskeletal system are sufficient to generate temporally extensive and spatially complex correlations between motor commands and arm kinematics. To test this hypothesis, we extended the computational and experimental method proposed for extracting pathlets from M1 activity to extract pathlets from muscle activity. Unlike M1 activity, it is clear that muscle activity does not encode arm kinematics. Accordingly, any spatiotemporal correlations in muscle pathlets can be attributed to musculoskeletal complexities rather than explicit higher-order representations. Our results demonstrate that extracting muscle pathlets is a robust and repeatable process. Pathlets extracted from the same muscle but different subjects or from the same muscle on different days were remarkably similar and roughly appropriate for that muscle's mechanical action. Critically, muscle pathlets included extensive spatiotemporal complexity, including kinematic features before and after the present muscle activity, similar to that reported for M1 neurons. These results suggest the possibility that M1 pathlets at least partly reflect the filter-like complexities of the periphery rather than high-level representations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".