ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
The illusion of internal models in biological movement.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebellar Electrical Activity as a Marker for Predicting Brain Health and Disease: A Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Optimizing voice therapy interventions: the application of the principles of motor learning in clinical practice.Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery · 2026Review
- Mechanisms of Visuomotor Interception.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- The equilibrium point hypothesis revisited: why threshold control does not explain human movement.Experimental brain research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The concept of internal models dominates contemporary theories of sensorimotor control, with researchers across neurosciences, specifically motor control, routinely explaining observed behaviors through computational representations that supposedly exist within the nervous system. In this perspective, I present a critical examination of internal model frameworks in sensorimotor control. I argue that representational approaches mischaracterize biological systems for several fundamental reasons: (1) Internal models require homuncular interpreters, creating infinite regress problems; (2) The purported neural implementations of internal models remain empirically elusive despite decades of research; (3) Biological movement systems exhibit multiscale, nonlinear, and non-Gaussian dynamics that fundamentally defy reduction to conventional computational representations; (4) Internal model frameworks implicitly depend on Cartesian dualism through their separation of the "controller" and "controlled;" (5) The framework is methodologically circular and largely unfalsifiable as virtually any behavior can be retroactively modeled as implementing some internal representation; and (6) Alternative frameworks based on ecological dynamics and self-organization can account for adaptive behavior without invoking representational assumptions. Instead of representational models, I propose that sensorimotor control emerges from the dynamic coupling between the organism and the environment across multiple spatial and temporal scales. By moving beyond the internal model paradigm, sensorimotor neuroscience can develop more powerful explanatory frameworks that better capture the emergent, context-sensitive properties of biological movement without invoking physiologically intractable computational metaphors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.