Motor Control: A Conceptual Framework for Rehabilitation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of conceptual and theoretical clarity among clinicians and researchers regarding the control of motor actions based on the use of the term "motor control." It is important to differentiate control processes from observations of motor output to improve communication and to make progress in understanding motor disorders and their remediation. This article clarifies terminology related to theoretical concepts underlying the control of motor actions, emphasizing how the term "motor control" is applied in neurorehabilitation. Two major opposing theoretical frameworks are described (i.e., direct and indirect), and their strengths and pitfalls are discussed. Then, based on the proposition that sensorimotor rehabilitation should be predicated on one comprehensive theory instead of an eclectic mix of theories and models, several solutions are offered about how to address controversies in motor learning, optimality, and adaptability of movement.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it