Vestibular System May Provide Equivalent Motor Actions Regardless of the Number of Body Segments Involved in the Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vestibulospinal system likely plays an essential role in motor equivalence--the ability to reach the desired motor goal despite intentional or imposed changes in the number of body segments involved in the task. To test this hypothesis, we compared the ability of healthy subjects and patients with unilateral vestibular lesions (surgical acoustic neuroma resection 0.6 to 6.7 yr before the study) to maintain either the same hand position or the same trajectory of within arm reach movements while flexing the trunk, in the absence of vision. In randomly selected trials, the trunk motion was prevented by an electromagnetic device. Healthy subjects were able to preserve the hand position or trajectory by modifying the elbow and shoulder joint rotations in a condition-dependent way, at a minimal latency of about 60 ms after the trunk movement onset. In contrast, six of seven patients showed deficits in the compensatory angular modifications at least in one of two tasks so that 30-100% of the trunk displacement was not compensated and thus influenced the hand position or trajectory. Results suggest that vestibular influences evoked by the head motion during trunk flexion play a major role in maintaining the consistency of arm motor actions in external space despite changes in the number of body segments involved. Our findings also suggest that despite long-term plasticity in the vestibular system and related neural structures, unilateral vestibular lesion may reduce the capacity of the nervous system to achieve motor equivalence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".