Spinal control of muscle synergies for adult mammalian locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEY POINTS: The control of locomotion is thought to be generated by activating groups of muscles that perform similar actions, which are termed muscle synergies. Here, we investigated if muscle synergies are controlled at the level of the spinal cord. We did this by comparing muscle activity in the legs of cats during stepping on a treadmill before and after a complete spinal transection that abolishes commands from the brain. We show that muscle synergies were maintained following spinal transection, validating the concept that muscle synergies for locomotion are primarily controlled by circuits of neurons within the spinal cord. ABSTRACT: Locomotion is thought to involve the sequential activation of functional modules or muscle synergies. Here, we tested the hypothesis that muscle synergies for locomotion are organized within the spinal cord. We recorded bursts of muscle activity in the same cats (n = 7) before and after spinal transection during tied-belt locomotion at three speeds and split-belt locomotion at three left-right speed differences. We identified seven muscles synergies before (intact state) and after (spinal state) spinal transection. The muscles comprising the different synergies were the same in the intact and spinal states as well as at different speeds or left-right speed differences. However, there were some significant shifts in the onsets and offsets of certain synergies as a function of state, speed and left-right speed differences. The most notable difference between the intact and spinal states was a change in the timing between the knee flexor and hip flexor muscle synergies. In the intact state, the knee flexor synergy preceded the hip flexor synergy, whereas in the spinal state both synergies occurred concurrently. Afferent inputs also appear important for the expression of some muscle synergies, specifically those involving biphasic patterns of muscle activity. We propose that muscle synergies for locomotion are primarily organized within the spinal cord, although their full expression and proper timing requires inputs from supraspinal structures and/or limb afferents.
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".