MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309265099 · doi:10.1007/s00422-022-00951-8

Variational and phase response analysis for limit cycles with hard boundaries, with applications to neuromechanical control problems

2022· article· en· W4309265099 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yangyang Wang, Jeffrey P. Gill, Hillel J. Chiel, Peter J. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Cybernetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Information and Communications TechnologyMedical Research CouncilInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINational Science FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute on Drug AbuseUK Research and InnovationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceCentral pattern generatorNonlinear systemLimit cycleMotor controlSensory systemNeural systemNeuroscienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsRhythmPsychologyBiologyControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor systems show an overall robustness, but because they are highly nonlinear, understanding how they achieve robustness is difficult. In many rhythmic systems, robustness against perturbations involves response of both the shape and the timing of the trajectory. This makes the study of robustness even more challenging. To understand how a motor system produces robust behaviors in a variable environment, we consider a neuromechanical model of motor patterns in the feeding apparatus of the marine mollusk Aplysia californica (Shaw et al. in J Comput Neurosci 38(1):25-51, 2015; Lyttle et al. in Biol Cybern 111(1):25-47, 2017). We established in (Wang et al. in SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst 20(2):701-744, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1344974 ) the tools for studying combined shape and timing responses of limit cycle systems under sustained perturbations and here apply them to study robustness of the neuromechanical model against increased mechanical load during swallowing. Interestingly, we discover that nonlinear biomechanical properties confer resilience by immediately increasing resistance to applied loads. In contrast, the effect of changed sensory feedback signal is significantly delayed by the firing rates' hard boundary properties. Our analysis suggests that sensory feedback contributes to robustness in swallowing primarily by shifting the timing of neural activation involved in the power stroke of the motor cycle (retraction). This effect enables the system to generate stronger retractor muscle forces to compensate for the increased load, and hence achieve strong robustness. The approaches that we are applying to understanding a neuromechanical model in Aplysia, and the results that we have obtained, are likely to provide insights into the function of other motor systems that encounter changing mechanical loads and hard boundaries, both due to mechanical and neuronal firing properties.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological CyberneticsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207