Sensory Recalibration of Hand Position Following Visuomotor Adaptation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal-directed reaches are rapidly adapted following exposure to misaligned visual feedback of the hand. It has been suggested that these changes in reaches result in sensory recalibration (i.e., realigning proprioceptive estimates of hand position to match the visual estimates). In the current study we tested whether visuomotor adaptation results in recalibration of hand proprioception by comparing subjects' estimates of the position at which they felt their hand was aligned with a reference marker (visual or proprioceptive) before and after aiming with a misaligned cursor. The misaligned cursor was either translated or rotated to the right of the actual hand location. On the estimation trials, we did not allow subjects to freely move their hands into position. Instead, a robot manipulandum either passively positioned the hand (experiments 1 and 2) or subjects moved their hand along a robot-generated constrained pathway (experiments 3 and 4). We found that regardless of experimental manipulation, subjects' proprioceptive estimates of hand position were more biased to the left after visuomotor adaptation. The leftward shift in subjects' estimates was in the same direction and one third of the magnitude of the adapted movement. This suggests that in addition to recalibrating the sensorimotor transformations underlying reaching movements, visuomotor adaptation results in partial proprioceptive recalibration.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it