The neural control of interlimb coordination during mammalian locomotion
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
Neuronal networks within the spinal cord directly control rhythmic movements of the arms/forelimbs and legs/hindlimbs during locomotion in mammals. For an effective locomotion, these networks must be flexibly coordinated to allow for various gait patterns and independent use of the arms/forelimbs. This coordination can be accomplished by mechanisms intrinsic to the spinal cord, somatosensory feedback from the limbs, and various supraspinal pathways. Incomplete spinal cord injury disrupts some of the pathways and structures involved in interlimb coordination, often leading to a disruption in the coordination between the arms/forelimbs and legs/hindlimbs in animal models and in humans. However, experimental spinal lesions in animal models to uncover the mechanisms coordinating the limbs have limitations due to compensatory mechanisms and strategies, redundant systems of control, and plasticity within remaining circuits. The purpose of this review is to provide a general overview and critical discussion of experimental studies that have investigated the neural mechanisms involved in coordinating the arms/forelimbs and legs/hindlimbs during mammalian locomotion.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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