Operation regimes of spinal circuits controlling locomotion and the role of supraspinal drives and sensory feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locomotion in mammals is directly controlled by the spinal neuronal network, operating under the control of supraspinal signals and somatosensory feedback that interact with each other. However, the functional architecture of the spinal locomotor network, its operation regimes, and the role of supraspinal and sensory feedback in different locomotor behaviors, including at different speeds, remain unclear. We developed a computational model of spinal locomotor circuits receiving supraspinal drives and limb sensory feedback that could reproduce multiple experimental data obtained in intact and spinal-transected cats during tied-belt and split-belt treadmill locomotion. We provide evidence that the spinal locomotor network operates in different regimes depending on locomotor speed. In an intact system, at slow speeds (<0.4 m/s), the spinal network operates in a non-oscillating state-machine regime and requires sensory feedback or external inputs for phase transitions. Removing sensory feedback related to limb extension prevents locomotor oscillations at slow speeds. With increasing speed and supraspinal drives, the spinal network switches to a flexor-driven oscillatory regime and then to a classical half-center regime. Following spinal transection, the model predicts that the spinal network can only operate in the state-machine regime. Our results suggest that the spinal network operates in different regimes for slow exploratory and fast escape locomotor behaviors, making use of different control mechanisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".