The neural optimal control hierarchy for motor control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our empirical, neuroscientific understanding of biological motor systems has been rapidly growing in recent years. However, this understanding has not been systematically mapped to a quantitative characterization of motor control based in control theory. Here, we attempt to bridge this gap by describing the neural optimal control hierarchy (NOCH), which can serve as a foundation for biologically plausible models of neural motor control. The NOCH has been constructed by taking recent control theoretic models of motor control, analyzing the required processes, generating neurally plausible equivalent calculations and mapping them on to the neural structures that have been empirically identified to form the anatomical basis of motor control. We demonstrate the utility of the NOCH by constructing a simple model based on the identified principles and testing it in two ways. First, we perturb specific anatomical elements of the model and compare the resulting motor behavior with clinical data in which the corresponding area of the brain has been damaged. We show that damaging the assigned functions of the basal ganglia and cerebellum can cause the movement deficiencies seen in patients with Huntington's disease and cerebellar lesions. Second, we demonstrate that single spiking neuron data from our model's motor cortical areas explain major features of single-cell responses recorded from the same primate areas. We suggest that together these results show how NOCH-based models can be used to unify a broad range of data relevant to biological motor control in a quantitative, control theoretic framework.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".