Physiological robustness of MScanFit to simulated motor unit loss and remodelling
Ahmed, D.; Almokdad, M.; Jones, K. E.
Show abstract
Introduction: MScanFit estimates motor unit number and size from compound muscle action potential (CMAP) scans, but its accuracy may depend on the physiological processes that shape motor unit loss and remodelling. We reproduced the general dynamic remodelling framework used in the original MScanFit simulation and expanded it to test MScanFit robustness across physiologically heterogeneous conditions. Methods: Generative computational models simulated CMAP scans from motor unit pools undergoing progressive loss from 160 to 5 surviving motor units. Twelve remodelling conditions combined denervation pattern (random or selective), reinnervation method (random, distributive, or size-weighted), and neuromuscular resilience (20% or 60%); two additional conditions modelled denervation without collateral reinnervation. MScanFit estimates were compared with the known motor unit numbers and mean motor unit sizes used to generate each scan. Results: MScanFit reproduced the principal behaviour reported in the original simulation and generally tracked progressive motor unit loss across heterogeneous remodelling conditions. However, motor unit number estimation (MUNE) error changed systematically with remodelling physiology. Selective denervation and distributive reinnervation increased error at several intermediate stages of motor unit loss, whereas 60% resilience produced greater error than 20% resilience at every stage after remodelling began. Motor unit size estimates also tracked the underlying increase in mean unit size, but their accuracy was more strongly affected by remodelling, particularly with 60% resilience and advanced motor unit loss. Conclusion: MScanFit motor unit number estimates were broadly robust to substantial motor unit loss and neuromuscular remodelling but were not physiologically invariant. Denervation and collateral reinnervation systematically influenced the magnitude and direction of estimation error, indicating that variation in MScanFit performance can arise from differences in the underlying motor unit population. These findings support MScanFit as a robust measure of motor unit loss across heterogeneous neuromuscular phenotypes and show that some of its estimation variability has a physiological basis.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Motoneuron-driven computational muscle modelling with motor unit resolution and subject-specific human musculoskeletal anatomy 93%
- A modular architecture for trial-by-trial learning of redundant muscle activity patterns in novel sensorimotor tasks 93%
- De Novo Sensorimotor Learning Through Reuse of Movement Components 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Model for Self-Organization of Sensorimotor Function: The Spinal Monosynaptic Loop 92%
- When 90% of the variance is not enough: residual EMG from muscle synergy extraction influences task performance 91%
- Integration of vestibular and hindlimb inputs by vestibular nucleus neurons: Multisensory influences on postural control. 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Flexible Control of Motor Units: Is the Multidimensionality of Motor Unit Manifolds a Sufficient Condition? 92%
- Intrinsic properties of spinal motoneurons degrade ankle torque control in humans 92%
- Voluntary co-contraction of ankle muscles alters motor unit discharge characteristics and reduces estimates of persistent inward currents 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The identification of extensive samples of motor units in human muscles reveals diverse effects of neuromodulatory inputs on the rate coding 94%
- Diverse and complex muscle spindle afferent firing properties emerge from multiscale muscle mechanics 93%
- Generating variability from motor primitives during infant locomotor development 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.