Eye and head movements and vestibulo-ocular reflex in the context of indirect, referent control of motor actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional explanations of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) and eye and head movements are revisited by considering two alternative frameworks addressing the question of how the brain controls motor actions. Traditionally, biomechanical and/or computational frameworks reflect the views of several prominent scholars of the past, including Helmholtz and von Holst, who assumed that the brain directly specifies the desired motor outcome and uses efference copy to influence perception. However, empirical studies resulting in the theory of referent control of action and perception (an extension of the equilibrium-point hypothesis) revealed that direct specification of motor outcome is inconsistent with nonlinear properties of motoneurons and with the physical principle that the brain can control motor actions only indirectly, by changing or maintaining the values of neurophysiological parameters that influence, but can remain independent of, biomechanical variables. Some parameters are used to shift the origin (referent) points of spatial frames of reference (FRs) or system of coordinates in which motor actions emerge without being predetermined. Parameters are adjusted until the emergent motor actions meet the task demands. Several physiological parameters and spatial FRs have been identified, supporting the notion of indirect, referent control of movements. Instead of integration of velocity-dependent signals, position-dimensional referent signals underlying head motion can likely be transmitted to motoneurons of extraocular muscles. This would produce compensatory eye movement preventing shifts in gaze during head rotation, even after bilateral destruction of the labyrinths. The referent control framework symbolizes a shift in the paradigm for the understanding of VOR and eye and head movement production.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".