Biomechanical and Sensory Feedback Regularize the Behavior of Different Locomotor Central Pattern Generators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents an in-depth numerical investigation into a hypothesized two-layer central pattern generator (CPG) that controls mammalian walking and how different parameter choices might affect the stepping of a simulated neuromechanical model. Particular attention is paid to the functional role of features that have not received a great deal of attention in previous work: the weak cross-excitatory connectivity within the rhythm generator and the synapse strength between the two layers. Sensitivity evaluations of deafferented CPG models and the combined neuromechanical model are performed. Locomotion frequency is increased in two different ways for both models to investigate whether the model's stability can be predicted by trends in the CPG's phase response curves (PRCs). Our results show that the weak cross-excitatory connection can make the CPG more sensitive to perturbations and that increasing the synaptic strength between the two layers results in a trade-off between forced phase locking and the amount of phase delay that can exist between the two layers. Additionally, although the models exhibit these differences in behavior when disconnected from the biomechanical model, these differences seem to disappear with the full neuromechanical model and result in similar behavior despite a variety of parameter combinations. This indicates that the neural variables do not have to be fixed precisely for stable walking; the biomechanical entrainment and sensory feedback may cancel out the strengths of excitatory connectivity in the neural circuit and play a critical role in shaping locomotor behavior. Our results support the importance of including biomechanical models in the development of computational neuroscience models that control mammalian locomotion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".