Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the neuromuscular mechanisms underlying the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics. A destabilizing velocity-dependent force field (VF) was introduced for sets of three consecutive trials. Between sets a random number of 4-8 null field trials were interposed, where the VF was inactivated. This prevented subjects from learning the novel dynamics, making it possible to repeatedly recreate the initial adaptive response. We were able to investigate detailed changes in neural control between the first, second and third VF trials. We identified two feedforward control mechanisms, which were initiated on the second VF trial and resulted in a 50% reduction in the hand path error. Responses to disturbances encountered on the first VF trial were feedback in nature, i.e. reflexes and voluntary correction of errors. However, on the second VF trial, muscle activation patterns were modified in anticipation of the effects of the force field. Feedforward cocontraction of all muscles was used to increase the viscoelastic impedance of the arm. While stiffening the arm, subjects also exerted a lateral force to counteract the perturbing effect of the force field. These anticipatory actions indicate that the central nervous system responds rapidly to counteract hitherto unfamiliar disturbances by a combination of increased viscoelastic impedance and formation of a crude internal dynamics model.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".