ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Unified comparison of spinal locomotion control architectures in neuromechanical simulations.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuromechanical simulations provide a powerful framework for investigating how neural control architectures generate and regulate human locomotion. Numerous biologically inspired locomotion controllers have been proposed, including reflex-based, central pattern generator (CPG)-based, and muscle synergy-based models. However, direct comparison across studies remains difficult because of differences in musculoskeletal models, optimization methods, and evaluation protocols. Here, we implemented four representative locomotion control architectures, reflex-based, CPG-reflex-based, muscle synergy-based, and CPG-reflex-synergy-based controllers, within a unified neuromechanical simulation framework to enable controlled comparisons under shared biomechanical and computational conditions. Performance was assessed in terms of (1) agreement with experimentally observed gait characteristics, including kinematics, kinetics, muscle activations, and biomechanical trends across speeds and slopes, and (2) locomotor versatility across speed-slope conditions. The reflex-based and CPG-reflex-synergy-based controllers most closely reproduced experimentally observed gait characteristics, while the CPG-reflex-synergy controller achieved the broadest range of stable walking behaviors across speeds and slopes, followed closely by the reflex-based controller. These findings should be interpreted as comparisons of specific model implementations rather than definitive evaluations of the underlying biological hypotheses. Moreover, because the investigated controllers primarily focused on spinal-level mechanisms for nominal steady-state locomotion, the limited versatility observed in some of the models across broader speed and slope conditions suggests the importance of integrating spinal locomotor mechanisms with supraspinal modulation when modeling locomotion beyond nominal steady gait. To facilitate further investigation, we publicly share the simulation framework and controller implementations.
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.