Stretch reflex gain in cat triceps surae muscles with compliant loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The triceps surae (TS) stretch reflex was measured in decerebrate cats during crossed extensor stimulation (tonic contractions) and after spinalization during rhythmic locomotor activity. The TS reflex force in response to a short pulse stretch measured during tonic contractions at low level of background activity was greater than when more background activity was present at the time of application of stretch. In contrast, the reflex force measured during rhythmic contractions was very small at low level of background force (flexion phase) and increased at moderate and high levels of background activity (extension phase). Thus, even in reduced preparations, a task modulation of the stretch reflex occurs. Throughout the experimental procedure, the torque motor used to stretch the muscles behaved like a spring of a preset compliance (from isometric to very compliant). A reflex model was used to simulate the responses obtained experimentally. The gain of the stretch reflex loop was estimated for each load condition and both behavioural tasks. The reflex loop gain was significantly larger as the compliance of the external load increased for both tonic and rhythmic contractions, although to a lesser extent in the phasically activated muscles. During rhythmic locomotor contractions the gain was less than 1, assuring stability of the system. In contrast, during tonic contractions against a compliant load the gain exceeded 1, consistent with the instability (oscillations, clonus) seen at times under these load conditions. However, the high gain and instability was only transient, since repeated stretch reduced the gain. Thus, non-linearities in the system assured vigorous responses at the onset of perturbations, but then weaker responses to ongoing perturbations to reduce the chance of feedback instability (clonus).
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) | 0.000 | 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".