The brain integrates proprioceptive information to ensure robust locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robust locomotion relies on information from proprioceptors: sensory organs that communicate the position of body parts to the spinal cord and brain. Proprioceptive circuits in the spinal cord are known to coarsely regulate locomotion in the presence of perturbations. Yet, the regulatory importance of the brain in maintaining robust locomotion remains less clear. Here, through mouse genetic studies and in vivo electrophysiology, we examined the role of the brain in integrating proprioceptive information during perturbed locomotion. The systemic removal of proprioceptors left the mice in a constantly perturbed state, similar to that observed during mechanically perturbed locomotion in wild-type mice and characterised by longer and less accurate synergistic activation patterns. By contrast, after surgically interrupting the ascending proprioceptive projection to the brain through the dorsal column of the spinal cord, wild-type mice showed normal walking behaviour, yet lost the ability to respond to external perturbations. Our findings provide direct evidence of a pivotal role for ascending proprioceptive information in achieving robust, safe locomotion. KEY POINTS: Whether brain integration of proprioceptive feedback is crucial for coping with perturbed locomotion is not clear. We showed a crucial role of the brain for responding to external perturbations and ensure robust locomotion. We used mouse genetics to remove proprioceptors and a spinal lesion model to interrupt the flow of proprioceptive information to the brain through the dorsal column in wild-type animals. Using a custom-built treadmill, we administered sudden and random mechanical perturbations to mice during walking. External perturbations affected locomotion in wild-type mice similar to the absence of proprioceptors in genetically modified mice. Proprioceptive feedback from muscle spindles and Golgi tendon organs contributed to locomotor robustness. Wild-type mice lost the ability to respond to external perturbations after interruption of the ascending proprioceptive projection to the brainstem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".