MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402740981 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.23.614404

Effects of sensorimotor delays and muscle force capacity limits on the performance of feedforward and feedback control in animals of different sizes

2024· preprint· en· W4402740981 on OpenAlexafffund
Sayed Naseel Mohamed Thangal, Heather L. More, C. David Remy, Max Donelan

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsFeed forwardControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Feedback controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringControl engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals rely on feedforward and feedback control for perturbation responses. When comparing terrestrial mammals of different sizes, we generally find that several features that affect perturbation responses change-larger animals have longer sensorimotor time delays, heavier body segments, and proportionally weaker muscles. We used simple computational models to study how control of fast perturbation responses is constrained by two limitations-sensorimotor delays and muscle force capacity-as a function of animal size. We developed two tasks representing common perturbation response scenarios in animal locomotion: a distributed mass pendulum approximating swing limb repositioning (swing task), and an inverted pendulum approximating whole body posture recovery (posture task). First, we used a normalized feedback control system to show how feedback response times can either be limited by the force generation capacity of muscles (force-limited), or by sensorimotor delays which constrain the maximum feedback gains that can be used to produce stable responses (delay-limited). Next, we used more detailed scaled models which represent the full size range of terrestrial mammals and parameterized the sensorimotor delays, maximum muscle forces, and inertial properties using scaling relationships from literature. Across animal size and in both tasks, we found that feedback control was primarily delay-limited-the fastest responses used a fraction of the available muscle force capacity. We compared feedback control to the fastest feedforward control strategy, and found that feedforward control response times were about four times faster than feedback control in the smallest animals, and around two times faster in the largest animals. For rapid perturbation responses, feedback control appears ineffective for terrestrial mammals of all sizes, as our simulated fastest response times exceeded available movement times. Thus, feedforward control strategies-including anticipatory adjustments, ballistic motor programs, and exploitation of intrinsic musculoskeletal dynamics-may be essential for reacting quickly to sudden and large perturbations in terrestrial mammals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207