Data from: Diverse and complex muscle spindle afferent firing properties emerge from multiscale muscle mechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite decades of research, we lack a mechanistic framework capable of predicting how movement-related signals are transformed into the diversity of muscle spindle afferent firing patterns observed experimentally, particularly in naturalistic behaviors. Here, a biophysical model demonstrates that well-known firing characteristics of mammalian muscle spindle Ia afferents – including movement history dependence, and nonlinear scaling with muscle stretch velocity – emerge from first principles of muscle contractile mechanics. Further, mechanical interactions of the muscle spindle with muscle-tendon dynamics reveal how motor commands to the muscle (alpha drive) versus muscle spindle (gamma drive) can cause highly variable and complex activity during active muscle contraction and muscle stretch that defy simple explanation. Depending on the neuromechanical conditions, the muscle spindle model output appears to “encode” aspects of muscle force, yank, length, stiffness, velocity, and/or acceleration, providing an extendable, multiscale, biophysical framework for understanding and predicting proprioceptive sensory signals in health and disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.029 |
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".