Cited by 598Motor Control and AdaptationNeural dynamics and brain functionMuscle activation and electromyography studies

A neural network that finds a naturalistic solution for the production of muscle activity

Open access
Sussillo, David, Churchland, Mark M, Kaufman, Matthew T, Shenoy, Krishna V·2015·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

It remains an open question how neural responses in motor cortex relate to movement. We explored the hypothesis that motor cortex reflects dynamics appropriate for generating temporally patterned outgoing commands. To formalize this hypothesis, we trained recurrent neural networks to reproduce the muscle activity of reaching monkeys. Models had to infer dynamics that could transform simple inputs into temporally and spatially complex patterns of muscle activity. Analysis of trained models revealed that the natural dynamical solution was a low-dimensional oscillator that generated the necessary multiphasic commands. This solution closely resembled, at both the single-neuron and population levels, what was observed in neural recordings from the same monkeys. Notably, data and simulations agreed only when models were optimized to find simple solutions. An appealing interpretation is that the empirically observed dynamics of motor cortex may reflect a simple solution to the problem of generating temporally patterned descending commands.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.4042

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A shortcoming of the DNN approach is that it does not predict how an individual neuron causally contributes to behaviour.

    “A shortcoming of this approach is that the DNN does not predict how an individual neuron causally contributes to behaviour, making it difficult to interpret the role of the neuron in the sensorimotor transformation.”

    From Mapping model units to visual neurons reveals population code for social behaviour (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says individual-neuron responses rarely resemble muscle activity and warns against interpreting each response as a representation of a meaningful variable. That supports the difficulty of interpreting a neuron's role, but the paper does not say the network cannot predict an individual neuron's causal contribution to behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some have gone on to suggest a direct correspondence between cortical circuits and optimized, appropriately regularized, recurrent neural networks.

    “Some have gone on to suggest a direct correspondence between cortical circuits and optimized, appropriately regularized (Sussillo et al., 2015), recurrent neural networks (Liao and Poggio, 2016).”

    From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Sussillo et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sussillo, D., Churchland, M. M., Kaufman, M. T., & Shenoy, K. V.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sussillo, David
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2015-06-15
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
1025-1033
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2102701721
Cited by
598
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 6
FWCI
20.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH93338-02, R01MH093338)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (DP2NS083037, R01NS076460)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (8DP1HD075623)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (DP1HD075623)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
motor cortex, muscle activity, reaching movements, recurrent neural networks, descending motor commands, motor control, neural dynamics, monkey motor cortex
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Electromyography, Motor Activity, Motor Cortex, Nerve Net, Neurons, Neural Networks, Computer, Muscle, Skeletal, Electrophysiological Phenomena

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