Motor-Control Notions in Health and Disease (What Controls Motor Control?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term `motor control´ encompasses a wide range of mechanisms thought to be implicated in the organization of movements. Their study, like that of any other scientific field, must use specific notions to get to grips with them. This review is therefore organized along a series of notions that are frequently used in motor control, and we will discuss them with particular emphasis on neurological conditions, which may disrupt normal motor functioning. We will start with a short description of the roles of space and time, in which movements take place. Subsequently we will deal with kinematics and kinetics (dynamics) of movements. Then, we will list the inputs to motoneurons (MNs), which, in different forms, convey signals from the central nervous system (CNS) to skeletal muscles and muscle spindles, including central pattern generators (CPGs), sensory inputs and supraspinal descending fiber systems. Some helpers in movement organization will be introduced, such as internal models and neuronal network models. A relatively brief section on sensory-motor learning will follow because learning abilities are required to endow the sensory-motor system with flexibility and adaptability. The major emphasis is placed on neurological processes, which result from genetic modifications, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, infections in the nervous system as well as vascular and traumatic lesions. These neurological diseases lead to a variety of impairments and symptoms, particularly movement derangements including cerebellar ataxia, spasticity, and (other) movement disorders such as Parkinson’s syndromes. The conclusion is that there is no unique top controller that controls ´motor control`.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".