Cited by 2,685Motor Control and AdaptationMemory and Neural MechanismsEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning.

Kawato, Mitsuo·1999·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

A number of internal model concepts are now widespread in neuroscience and cognitive science. These concepts are supported by behavioral, neurophysiological, and imaging data; furthermore, these models have had their structures and functions revealed by such data. In particular, a specific theory on inverse dynamics model learning is directly supported by unit recordings from cerebellar Purkinje cells. Multiple paired forward inverse models describing how diverse objects and environments can be controlled and learned separately have recently been proposed. The 'minimum variance model' is another major recent advance in the computational theory of motor control. This model integrates two furiously disputed approaches on trajectory planning, strongly suggesting that both kinematic and dynamic internal models are utilized in movement planning and control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0959-4388(99)00028-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cerebellum has been proposed to be a crucial component in the state estimation process that combines motor efferent and sensory afferent signals to produce a representation of the current state of the motor system.

    “The cerebellum has been proposed to be a crucial component in the state estimation process that combines information from motor efferent and sensory afferent signals to produce a representation of the current state of the motor system (Kawato, 1999; Miall et al., 2007).”

    From Impulsive action: emotional impulses and their control (2014) · cites this paper as Kawato, 1999

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 81 · Cited by 2,685

Authors
Kawato, M.
Affiliations
Japan Science and Technology Agency (JP)
Corresponding author
Kawato, Mitsuo
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-12
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
718-727
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114414717
Cited by
2,685
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 140 · 2018: 113 · 2017: 132 · 2016: 106 · 2015: 130 · 2014: 128 · 2013: 136 · 2012: 107
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Exploratory Research for Advanced Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
internal models, motor control, trajectory planning, inverse dynamics, forward model, Purkinje cells, cerebellum, kinematic modeling, dynamic model, motor learning
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Humans, Models, Neurological, Motor Activity, Psychomotor Performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review