MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1202022002 · doi:10.1163/22134808-00002501

Prediction in the Vestibular Control of Arm Movements

2015· review· en· W1202022002 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultisensory Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVestibular systemTrunkMotor controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotion (physics)PsychologyTrajectoryMovement (music)Vestibular nucleiNeuroscienceComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligencePhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contribution of vestibular signals to motor control has been evidenced in postural, locomotor, and oculomotor studies. Here, we review studies showing that vestibular information also contributes to the control of arm movements during whole-body motion. The data reviewed suggest that vestibular information is used by the arm motor system to maintain the initial hand position or the planned hand trajectory unaltered during body motion. This requires integration of vestibular and cervical inputs to determine the trunk motion dynamics. These studies further suggest that the vestibular control of arm movement relies on rapid and efficient vestibulomotor transformations that cannot be considered automatic. We also reviewed evidence suggesting that the vestibular afferents can be used by the brain to predict and counteract body-rotation-induced torques (e.g., Coriolis) acting on the arm when reaching for a target while turning the trunk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.488
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.030 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it