MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020523534 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab8e8e

Pavlovian control of intraspinal microstimulation to produce over-ground walking

2020· article· en· W3020523534 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashley N Dalrymple, David A. Roszko, Richard S. Sutton, Vivian K. Mushahwar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMicrostimulationComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationControl (management)NeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyArtificial intelligenceStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Neuromodulation technologies are increasingly used for improving function after neural injury. To achieve a symbiotic relationship between device and user, the device must augment remaining function, and independently adapt to day-to-day changes in function. The goal of this study was to develop predictive control strategies to produce over-ground walking in a model of hemisection spinal cord injury (SCI) using intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS). APPROACH: Eight cats were anaesthetized and placed in a sling over a walkway. The residual function of a hemisection SCI was mimicked by manually moving one hind-limb through the walking cycle. ISMS targeted motor networks in the lumbosacral enlargement to activate muscles in the other, presumably 'paralyzed' limb, using low levels of current (<130 μA). Four people took turns to move the 'intact' limb, generating four different walking styles. Two control strategies, which used ground reaction force and angular velocity information about the manually moved 'intact' limb to control the timing of the transitions of the 'paralyzed' limb through the step cycle, were compared. The first strategy used thresholds on the raw sensor values to initiate transitions. The second strategy used reinforcement learning and Pavlovian control to learn predictions about the sensor values. Thresholds on the predictions were then used to initiate transitions. MAIN RESULTS: Both control strategies were able to produce alternating, over-ground walking. Transitions based on raw sensor values required manual tuning of thresholds for each person to produce walking, whereas Pavlovian control did not. Learning occurred quickly during walking: predictions of the sensor signals were learned rapidly, initiating correct transitions after ≤4 steps. Pavlovian control was resilient to different walking styles and different cats, and recovered from induced mistakes during walking. SIGNIFICANCE: This work demonstrates, for the first time, that Pavlovian control can augment remaining function and facilitate personalized walking with minimal tuning requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207