Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- ORCID
- 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