Differential modulation of descending signals from the reticulospinal system during reaching and locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that the same spinal interneuronal pathways are activated by the reticulospinal system during locomotion and reaching. If such were the case, we expected that microstimulation within the pontomedullary reticular formation (PMRF) would evoke qualitatively similar responses in muscles active during both behaviors. To test this, we stimulated in 47 sites within the PMRF during both tasks. Stimulation during locomotion always produced a strongly phase-dependent, bilateral pattern of activity in which activity in muscles was generally facilitated or suppressed during one phase of activity (swing or stance) and was unaffected in the other. During reaching, stimulation generally activated the same muscles as during locomotion, although the modulation of the magnitude of the evoked responses was less limb dependent than during locomotion. An exception was found for some forelimb flexor muscles that were strongly facilitated by stimulation during the swing phase of locomotion but were not influenced by stimulation during the transport phase of the reach. We suggest that during locomotion the activity in interneuronal pathways mediating signals from the reticulospinal system is subject to strong modulation by the central pattern generator for locomotion. During reach, we suggest that, for most muscles, the same spinal interneuronal pathways are used to modify muscle activity but are not as strongly gated according to limb use as during locomotion. Finally, we propose that the command for movement during discrete voluntary movements suppresses the influence of the reticulospinal system on selected forelimb flexor muscles, possibly to enhance fractionated control of 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".