{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0128928283642224, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016116035455278, 'mean_word_length': 4.671232876712328, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Forward and inverse models in motor control and cognitive control

It is now commonly accepted that the motor system 
makes use of so-called forward and inverse models in order to 
control the musculoskeletal system during rapid, skilled, motor 
behaviour. Inverse models are held to allow the system to 
determine the motor commands necessary to achieve a desired 
state, while forward models are held to allow the system to 
predict the expected sensory feedback of a motor command, 
allowing rapid error detection when actual and predicted 
feedback do not match. It has recently been suggested that these 
ideas from control theory might also be applied to the control of 
cognitive processes, allowing (for example) the cognitive system 
to anticipate processing conflict and pre-emptively minimise it 
by adjusting processing strategies or the allocation of processing 
resources. 
12 
This paper reviews theories of cognitive control that 
are broadly consistent with the use of complementary forward 
and inverse models. It is argued that there is indeed a role for 
such models in cognitive control – particularly in relation to a 
putative monitoring function – but that the models involved are 
likely to be somewhat impoverished.