Towards an Understanding of Control of Complex Rhythmical “Wavelike” Coordination in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the human neurophysiological system self-organize to achieve optimal phase relationships among joints and limbs, such as in the composite rhythms of butterfly and front crawl swimming, drumming, or dancing? We conducted a systematic review of literature relating to central nervous system (CNS) control of phase among joint/limbs in continuous rhythmic activities. SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched using keywords "Phase AND Rhythm AND Coordination". This yielded 1039 matches from which 23 papers were extracted for inclusion based on screening criteria. The empirical evidence arising from in-vivo, fictive, in-vitro, and modelling of neural control in humans, other species, and robots indicates that the control of movement is facilitated and simplified by innervating muscle synergies by way of spinal central pattern generators (CPGs). These typically behave like oscillators enabling stable repetition across cycles of movements. This approach provides a foundation to guide the design of empirical research in human swimming and other limb independent activities. For example, future research could be conducted to explore whether the Saltiel two-layer CPG model to explain locomotion in cats might also explain the complex relationships among the cyclical motions in human swimming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".