Interchangeable Role of Motor Cortex and Reafference for the Stable Execution of an Orofacial Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals interact with their environment through mechanically active, mobile sensors. The efficient use of these sensory organs implies the ability to track their position; otherwise, perceptual stability or prehension would be profoundly impeded. The nervous system may keep track of the position of a sensorimotor organ via two complementary feedback mechanisms—peripheral reafference (external, sensory feedback) and efference copy (internal feedback). Yet, the potential contributions of these mechanisms remain largely unexplored. By training male rats to place one of their vibrissae within a predetermined angular range without contact, a task that depends on knowledge of vibrissa position relative to their face, we found that peripheral reafference is not required. The presence of motor cortex is not required either, except in the absence of peripheral reafference to maintain motor stability. Finally, the red nucleus, which receives descending inputs from motor cortex and cerebellum and projects to facial motoneurons, is critically involved in the execution of the vibrissa positioning task. All told, our results point toward the existence of an internal model that requires either peripheral reafference or motor cortex to optimally drive voluntary motion. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT How does an animal know where a mechanically active, mobile sensor lies relative to its body? We address this basic question in sensorimotor integration using the motion of the vibrissae in rats. We show that rats can learn to reliably position their vibrissae in the absence of sensory feedback or in the absence of motor cortex. Yet, when both sensory feedback and motor cortex are absent, motor precision is degraded. This suggests the existence of an internal model able to operate in closed- and open-loop modes, requiring either motor cortex or sensory feedback to maintain motor stability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".