Spinal stretch reflexes support efficient control of reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Efficiently controlling the movement of our hand requires coordinating the motion of multiple joints of the arm. Although it is widely assumed that this type of efficient control is implemented by processing that occurs in the cerebral cortex and brain stem, recent work has shown that spinal circuits can generate efficient motor output that supports keeping the hand in a static location. Here, we show that a spinal pathway can also efficiently control the hand during reaching. In our first experiment we applied multi-joint mechanical perturbations to participant’s elbow and wrist as they began reaching towards a target. We found that spinal stretch reflexes evoked in elbow muscles were not proportional to how much the elbow muscles were stretched but instead were efficiently scaled to the hand’s distance from the target. In our second experiment we applied the same elbow and wrist perturbations but had participants change how they grasped the manipulandum, diametrically altering how the same wrist perturbation moved the hand relative to the reach target. We found that changing the arm’s orientation diametrically altered how spinal reflexes in the elbow muscles were evoked, and in such a way that were again efficiently scaled to the hand’s distance from the target. These findings demonstrate that spinal circuits can help efficiently control the hand during dynamic reaching actions, and show that efficient and flexible motor control is not exclusively dependent on processing that occurs within supraspinal regions of the nervous system.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".