The Role of Muscle Spindle Feedback in the Guidance of Hindlimb Movement by the Ipsilateral Forelimb during Locomotion in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe and efficient locomotion relies on placing the foot on a reliable surface at the end of each leg swing movement. Visual information has been shown to be important for determining the location of foot placement in humans during walking when precision is required. Yet in quadrupedal animals where the hindlimbs are outside of the visual field, such as in mice, the mechanisms by which precise foot placement is achieved remain unclear. Here we show that the placement of the hindlimb paw is determined by the position of the forelimb paw during normal locomotion and in the presence of perturbations. When a perturbation elicits a stumbling corrective reaction, we found that the forelimb paw shifts posteriorly relative to body at the end of stance, and this spatial shift is echoed in hindlimb paw placement at the end of the swing movement. Using a mutant mouse line in which muscle spindle feedback is selectively removed, we show that this posterior shift of paw placement is dependent on muscle spindle feedback in the hindlimb but not in the forelimb. These findings uncover a neuronal mechanism that is independent of vision to ensure safe locomotion during perturbation. This mechanism adds to our general knowledge of how the nervous system controls targeted limb movements and could inform the development of autonomous walking machines.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".