Learning to evoke complex motor outputs with spatiotemporal neurostimulation using a hierarchical and adaptive optimization algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of neurostimulation techniques to evoke motor patterns is an active area of research. It serves as a crucial experimental tool to probe computation in neural circuits, and it has applications in neuroprostheses used to aid recovery of function after stroke or injury. There are two important challenges when designing algorithms to unveil and control neurostimulation-to-motor mappings, thereby linking spatiotemporal patterns of neural stimulation to muscle activation: (1) the exploration of motor maps needs to be fast and efficient (exhaustive search is to be avoided for clinical and experimental reasons) (2) online learning needs to be flexible enough to track ongoing changes in these maps. We propose a stimulation search algorithm to address these issues, and demonstrate its efficacy with experiments in non-human primate models. Our solution is a novel iterative process using Bayesian Optimization via Gaussian Processes on increasingly complex signal spaces. We show that our algorithm can successfully and rapidly learn mappings between complex stimulation patterns and evoked muscle activation patterns, where standard approaches fail. Importantly, we uncover nonlinear circuit-level computations in M1 that would not have been possible to identify using conventional mapping techniques.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".