Forward and Backward Arm Cycling Are Regulated by Equivalent Neural Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was shown some time ago that cutaneous reflexes were phase-reversed when comparing forward and backward treadmill walking. Activity of central-pattern-generating networks (CPG) regulating neural activity for locomotion was suggested as a mechanism involved in this "program reversal." We have been investigating the neural control of arm movements and the role for CPG mechanisms in regulating rhythmic arm cycling. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern of muscle activity and reflex modulation when comparing forward and backward arm cycling. During rhythmic arm cycling (forward and backward), cutaneous reflexes were evoked with trains (5 x 1.0 ms pulses at 300 Hz) of electrical stimulation delivered to the superficial radial (SR) nerve at the wrist. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings were made bilaterally from muscles acting at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Analysis was conducted on specific sections of the movement cycle after phase-averaging contingent on the timing of stimulation in the movement cycle. EMG patterns for rhythmic arm cycling are similar during both forward and backward motion. Cutaneous reflex amplitudes were similarly modulated at both early and middle latency irrespective of arm cycling direction. That is, at similar phases in the movement cycle, responses of corresponding sign and amplitude were seen regardless of movement direction. The results are generally parallel to the observations seen in leg muscles after stimulation of cutaneous nerves in the foot during forward and backward walking and provide further evidence for CPG activity contributing to neural activation and reflex modulation during rhythmic arm movement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".