An output-null signature of inertial load in motor cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordinated movement requires the nervous system to continuously compensate for changes in mechanical load across different conditions. For voluntary movements like reaching, the motor cortex is a critical hub that generates commands to move the limbs and counteract loads. How does cortex contribute to load compensation when rhythmic movements are sequenced by a spinal pattern generator? Here, we address this question by manipulating the mass of the forelimb in unrestrained mice during locomotion. While load produces changes in motor output that are robust to inactivation of motor cortex, it also induces a profound shift in cortical dynamics. This shift is minimally affected by cerebellar perturbation and significantly larger than the load response in the spinal motoneuron population. This latent representation may enable motor cortex to generate appropriate commands when a voluntary movement must be integrated with an ongoing, spinally-generated rhythm. Motor cortex generates commands for voluntary movement, but its role in tasks driven by a spinal pattern generator remains unclear. Here, the authors identify a cortical signal for inertial load in locomoting mice that is decoupled from motor output.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".