Memory-Guided Stumbling Correction in the Hindlimb of Quadrupeds Relies on Parietal Area 5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In complex environments, tripping over an unexpected obstacle evokes the stumbling corrective reaction, eliciting rapid limb hyperflexion to lift the leg over the obstruction. While stumbling correction has been characterized within a single limb in the cat, this response must extend to both forelegs and hindlegs for successful avoidance in naturalistic settings. Furthermore, the ability to remember an obstacle over which the forelegs have tripped is necessary for hindleg clearance if locomotion is delayed. Therefore, memory-guided stumbling correction was studied in walking cats after the forelegs tripped over an unexpected obstacle. Tactile input to only one foreleg was often sufficient in modulating stepping of all four legs when locomotion was continuous, or when hindleg clearance was delayed. When obstacle height was varied, animals appropriately scaled step height to obstacle height. As tactile input without foreleg clearance was insufficient in reliably modulating stepping, efference, or proprioceptive information about modulated foreleg stepping may be important for producing a robust, long-lasting memory. Finally, cooling-induced deactivation of parietal area 5 altered hindleg stepping in a manner indicating that animals no longer recalled the obstacle over which they had tripped. Altogether, these results demonstrate the integral role area 5 plays in memory-guided stumbling correction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".