Material evidence: interaction of well-learned priors and sensorimotor memory when lifting objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skilled object lifting requires the prediction of object weight. When lifting new objects, such prediction is based on well-learned size-weight and material-density correlations, or priors. However, if the prediction is erroneous, people quickly learn the weight of the particular object and can use this knowledge, referred to as sensorimotor memory, when lifting the object again. In the present study, we explored how sensorimotor memory, gained when lifting a given object, interacts with well-learned material-density priors when predicting the weight of a larger but otherwise similar-looking object. Different groups of participants 1st lifted 1 of 4 small objects 10 times. These included a pair of wood-filled objects and a pair of brass-filled objects where 1 of each pair was covered in a wood veneer and the other was covered in a brass veneer. All groups then lifted a larger, brass-filled object with the same covering as the small object they had lifted. For each lift, we determined the initial peak rate of change of vertical load-force rate and the load-phase duration, which provide estimates of predicted object weight. Analysis of the 10th lift of the small cube revealed no effects of surface material, indicating participants learned the appropriate forces required to lift the small cube regardless of object appearance. However, both surface material and core material of the small cube affected the 1st lift of the large block. We conclude that sensorimotor memory related to object density can contribute to weight prediction when lifting novel objects but also that long-term priors related to material properties can influence the prediction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".