Cited by 2,122Motor Control and AdaptationEmbodied and Extended CognitionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Computational principles of movement neuroscience

Wolpert, Daniel M., Ghahramani, Zoubin·2000·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Unifying principles of movement have emerged from the computational study of motor control. We review several of these principles and show how they apply to processes such as motor planning, control, estimation, prediction and learning. Our goal is to demonstrate how specific models emerging from the computational approach provide a theoretical framework for movement neuroscience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/81497

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 forward-model framework holds that the brain simulates motor commands and forecasts the sensory outcomes those commands will produce.

    “Forward models incorporate at their core the presupposition that neural systems internally simulate motor (output) commands and predict their perceptual consequences (for review see Wolpert and Ghahramani, 2000).”

    From Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models (2010) · cites this paper as Wolpert and Ghahramani, 2000

  • Predictive coding models are well-established in accounting for various features of perception, cognition, and motor control.

    “Predictive coding models are now well-established in accounting for various features of perception (Rao and Ballard, 1999; Yuille and Kersten, 2006), cognition (Grush, 2004), and motor control (Wolpert and Ghahramani, 2000)”

    From An Interoceptive Predictive Coding Model of Conscious Presence (2012) · cites this paper as Wolpert and Ghahramani, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z.
Affiliations
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
Corresponding author
Wolpert, Daniel M.
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2000-11
Volume
3
Issue
S11
Pages
1212-1217
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W1779974355
Cited by
2,122
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 113 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 101 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 111 · 2013: 110 · 2012: 101
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Gatsby Charitable Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
motor control, motor planning, motor learning, motor prediction, theoretical framework
MeSH terms
Animals, Central Nervous System, Feedback, Humans, Learning, Models, Neurological, Movement, Nerve Net, Neurons, Psychomotor Performance, Sensation

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