Sherlock Holmes and the curious case of the human locomotor central pattern generator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence first described in reduced animal models over 100 years ago led to deductions about the control of locomotion through spinal locomotor central pattern-generating (CPG) networks. These discoveries in nature were contemporaneous with another form of deductive reasoning found in popular culture, that of Arthur Conan Doyle's detective, Sherlock Holmes. Because the invasive methods used in reduced nonhuman animal preparations are not amenable to study in humans, we are left instead with deducing from other measures and observations. Using the deductive reasoning approach of Sherlock Holmes as a metaphor for framing research into human CPGs, we speculate and weigh the evidence that should be observable in humans based on knowledge from other species. This review summarizes indirect inference to assess "observable evidence" of pattern-generating activity that leads to the logical deduction of CPG contributions to arm and leg activity during locomotion in humans. The question of where a CPG may be housed in the human nervous system remains incompletely resolved at this time. Ongoing understanding, elaboration, and application of functioning locomotor CPGs in humans is important for gait rehabilitation strategies in those with neurological injuries.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".