The locus coeruleus directs sensory-motor reflex amplitude across environmental contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purposeful movement across unpredictable environments requires quick, accurate, and contextually appropriate motor corrections in response to disruptions in balance and posture. 1 , 2 , 3 These responses must respect both the current position and limitations of the body, as well as the surrounding environment, 4 , 5 , 6 and involve a combination of segmental reflexes in the spinal cord, vestibulospinal and reticulospinal pathways in the brainstem, and forebrain structures such as the motor cortex. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 These motor plans can be heavily influenced by the animal's surrounding environment, even when that environment has no mechanical influence on the perturbation itself. This environmental influence has been considered as cortical in nature, priming motor responses to a perturbation. 8 , 11 Similarly, postural responses can be influenced by environments that alter threat levels in humans. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 Such studies are generally in agreement with work done in the mouse showing that optogenetic stimulation of the lateral vestibular nucleus (LVN) only results in motor responses when the animal is on a balance beam at height and not when walking on the stable surface of a treadmill. 10 In general, this ability to flexibly modify postural responses across terrains and environmental conditions is a critically important component of the balance system. 19 , 20 Here we show that LVN-generated motor corrections can be altered by manipulating the surrounding environment. Furthermore, environmental influence on corrections requires noradrenergic signaling from the locus coeruleus, suggesting a potential link between forebrain structures that convey sensory information about the environment and brainstem circuits that generate motor corrections.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".