Possible contributions of CPG activity to the control of rhythmic human arm movement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is extensive modulation of cutaneous and H-reflexes during rhythmic leg movement in humans. Mechanisms controlling reflex modulation (e.g., phase- and task-dependent modulation, and reflex reversal) during leg movements have been ascribed to the activity of spinal central pattern generating (CPG) networks and peripheral feedback. Our working hypothesis has been that neural mechanisms (i.e., CPGs) controlling rhythmic movement are conserved between the human lumbar and cervical spinal cord. Thus reflex modulation during rhythmic arm movement should be similar to that for rhythmic leg movement. This hypothesis has been tested by studying the regulation of reflexes in arm muscles during rhythmic arm cycling and treadmill walking. This paper reviews recent studies that have revealed that reflexes in arm muscles show modulation within the movement cycle (e.g., phase-dependency and reflex reversal) and between static and rhythmic motor tasks (e.g., task-dependency). It is concluded that reflexes are modulated similarly during rhythmic movement of the upper and lower limbs, suggesting similar motor control mechanisms. One notable exception to this pattern is a failure of contralateral arm movement to modulate reflex amplitude, which contrasts directly with observations from the leg. Overall, the data support the hypothesis that CPG activity contributes to the neural control of 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it