Motor cortex latent dynamics encode spatial and temporal arm movement parameters independently
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fluid movement of an arm requires multiple spatiotemporal parameters to be set independently. Recent studies have argued that arm movements are generated by the collective dynamics of neurons in motor cortex. An untested prediction of this hypothesis is that independent parameters of movement must map to independent components of the neural dynamics. Using a task where monkeys made a sequence of reaching movements to randomly placed targets, we show that the spatial and temporal parameters of arm movements are independently encoded in the low-dimensional trajectories of population activity in motor cortex: Each movement’s direction corre-sponds to a fixed neural trajectory through neural state space and its speed to how quickly that trajectory is traversed. Recurrent neural network models show this coding allows independent control over the spatial and temporal parameters of movement by separate network parameters. Our results support a key prediction of the dynamical systems view of motor cortex, but also argue that not all parameters of movement are defined by different trajectories of population activity. Significance Statement From delicate strokes while drawing to ballistic swings while playing tennis, a skilled arm movement requires precise control of both its direction and speed. Motor cortex is thought to play a key role in controlling both, but it is unclear how they are jointly controlled. We show here that the population activity in motor cortex represents both the spatial and temporal properties of arm movements in the same low-dimensional signal. This representation was remarkably simple: the movement’s direction is represented by the trajectory that signal takes; the movement’s speed by how quickly the signal moves along its trajectory. Our network modelling shows this encoding allows an arm movement’s direction and speed to be simultaneously and independently controlled.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".