Control of position and movement is simplified by combined muscle spindle and Golgi tendon organ feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas muscle spindles play a prominent role in current theories of human motor control, Golgi tendon organs (GTO) and their associated tendons are often neglected. This is surprising since there is ample evidence that both tendons and GTOs contribute importantly to neuromusculoskeletal dynamics. Using detailed musculoskeletal models, we provide evidence that simple feedback using muscle spindles alone results in very poor control of joint position and movement since muscle spindles cannot sense changes in tendon length that occur with changes in muscle force. We propose that a combination of spindle and GTO afferents can provide an estimate of muscle-tendon complex length, which can be effectively used for low-level feedback during both postural and movement tasks. The feasibility of the proposed scheme was tested using detailed musculoskeletal models of the human arm. Responses to transient and static perturbations were simulated using a 1-degree-of-freedom (DOF) model of the arm and showed that the combined feedback enabled the system to respond faster, reach steady state faster, and achieve smaller static position errors. Finally, we incorporated the proposed scheme in an optimally controlled 2-DOF model of the arm for fast point-to-point shoulder and elbow movements. Simulations showed that the proposed feedback could be easily incorporated in the optimal control framework without complicating the computation of the optimal control solution, yet greatly enhancing the system's response to perturbations. The theoretical analyses in this study might furthermore provide insight about the strong physiological couplings found between muscle spindle and GTO afferents in the human nervous system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".