Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access published online on May 27, 2007
Integrative and Comparative Biology, doi:10.1093/icb/icm037
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reflections on integrative and comparative movement neuroscience
Department of Physiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ 85724-5051, USA
Correspondence: 1E-mail: dgstuart{at}u.arizona
Integrative movement neuroscience involves blending "inside-out" and "outside-in" approaches in the study of posture and movement. The former is characterized by determining the properties of single cells within the central nervous system (CNS) and then ascertaining how these properties influence the operation of CNS microcircuits, single reflexes, groups of reflexes, and generators of central pattern. This information is then used to theorize about CNS control of overt motor behavior. In contrast, the outside-in approach begins with analysis of the biomechanics of posture and movement and then uses this information to theorize how the mechanics are solved by the CNS and its pathways, circuitry, and even single cells. Studies conducted in the 1960s on CNS circuitry generating locomotor patterns in several invertebrate and vertebrate species, together with work on the treadmill locomotion of brain-stimulated decerebrate cats, led to a subsequent convergence of inside-out and outside-in understanding of the neural control of locomotion in invertebrates, nonmammalian vertebrates, and mammalian vertebrates, even including humans. This convergence of integrative and comparative approaches has been facilitated by modeling and simulation studies. These developments have important implications for doctoral and postdoctoral training programs in movement neuroscience. They can profit greatly by use of a multidisciplinary university-wide faculty who place a strong emphasis on integrative and comparative biology. Furthermore, the next generation of movement neuroscientists will require more familiarity with modeling and simulation than are being provided in most current training programs. To achieve the above, it will be advantageous if university culture and structure truly champion university-wide interdisciplinary research.
From the symposium "Recent Developments in Neurobiology" presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparitive Biology, January 3–7 2007, at Phoenix, Arizona.