Apparent and Actual Trajectory Control Depend on the Behavioral Context in Upper Limb Motor Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central problem in motor neuroscience is to understand how we select, plan, and control motor actions. An influential idea is that the motor system computes and implements a desired limb trajectory, an intermediary control process between the behavioral goal (reach a spatial goal) and motor commands to move the limb. The most compelling evidence for trajectory control is that corrective responses are directed back toward the unperturbed trajectory when the limb is disturbed during movement. However, the idea of trajectory control conflicts with optimal control theories that emphasize goal-directed motor corrections. Here we show that corrective responses in human subjects can deviate back toward the unperturbed trajectory, but these reversals were only present when there were explicit limits on movement time. Our second experiment asked whether trajectory control could be generated if the trajectory was made an explicit goal of the task. Participants countered unexpected loads while reaching to a static goal, tracking a moving target, or maintaining their hand within a visually constrained path to a static goal. Corrective responses were directed back toward the constrained path or to intercept the moving target. However, corrections back to the unperturbed path disappeared when reaching to the static target. Long-latency muscle responses paralleled changes in the behavioral goal in both sets of experiments, but goal-directed responses were delayed by 15-25 ms when tracking the moving goal. Our results show the motor system can behave like a trajectory controller but only if a "desired trajectory" is the goal of the task. Significance statement: One of the most influential ideas in motor control is that the motor system computes a "desired trajectory" when reaching to a spatial goal. Here we revisit the experimental paradigm from seminal papers supporting trajectory control to illustrate that corrective responses appear to return to the original trajectory of the limb, but only if there is an imposed timing constraint. We then provide direct evidence that the human motor system can behave like a trajectory controller, and return the limb to its original trajectory when a specified trajectory is the goal of the task. Our results show that the motor system is capable of a spectrum of corrective responses that depend on the behavioral goal of the motor task.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".