MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039184703 · doi:10.1142/s2424905x20410032

Intelligent Control of a Spinal Prosthesis to Restore Walking After Neural Injury: Recent Work and Future Possibilities

2020· article· en· W3039184703 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley N Dalrymple, Vivian K. Mushahwar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Robotics Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostimulationNeural ProsthesisComputer scienceMotor controlAdaptation (eye)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceControl engineeringNeuroscienceEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review focuses on the development of intelligent, intuitive control strategies for restoring walking using an innovative spinal neural prosthesis called intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS). These control strategies are inspired by the control of walking by the nervous system and are aimed at mimicking the natural functionality of locomotor-related sensorimotor systems. The work to date demonstrates how biologically inspired control strategies, some including machine learning methods, can be used to augment remaining function in models of complete and partial paralysis developed in anesthetized cats. This review highlights the advantages of learning predictions to produce automatically adaptive control of over-ground walking. This review also speculates on the possible future applications of similar machine learning algorithms for challenging walking tasks including navigating obstacles and traversing difficult terrain. Finally, this review explores the potential for plasticity and motor recovery with long-term use of such intelligent control systems and neural interfaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Robotics ResearchSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207