Computational approaches to motor control and their potential role for interpreting motor dysfunction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Computational frameworks, notably internal models and optimal control theory, have led to rapid advances in our understanding of how the brain plans and controls movement. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of these theoretical ideas, how they have been used to interpret motor control, as well as their potential role for interpreting motor dysfunction. RECENT FINDINGS: There are two general types of internal models, neural processes that mimic the mechanical properties of the limb (and environment). Forward internal models parallel the normal causal flow of the motor periphery and estimate limb motion from motor commands. Inverse internal models perform the reverse process by estimating motor commands from signals related to intended limb motion and/or spatial targets. This framework has led to several important behavioural observations on motor planning, control and learning, and has also been influential for interpreting neural activity in awake, behaving non-human primates. A more recent framework for interpreting motor function is optimal control theory, which recognizes that noise or errors are an inherent feature of the motor system and may influence strategies to plan and control movement. SUMMARY: Internal models and optimal feedback control both provide frameworks for interpreting motor performance, and may be of value for interpreting many motor dysfunctions associated with neurological injuries. Advanced technologies such as robots that have played a key role in these frameworks may be also of considerable value for motor assessment and rehabilitation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".