Position Information But Not Force Information Is Used in Adapting to Changes in Environmental Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how movement error is evaluated and used to change feedforward commands following a change in the environmental dynamics. In particular, we addressed the question of whether only position-error information is used or whether information about the force-field direction can also be used for rapid adaptation to changes in the environmental dynamics. Subjects learned to move in a position-dependent force field (PF) with a parabolic profile and the dynamics of a negative spring, which produced lateral force to the left of the target hand path. They adapted very rapidly, dramatically reducing lateral error after a single trial. Several times during training, the strength of the PF was unexpectedly doubled (PF2) for two trials. This again created a large leftward deviation, which was greatly reduced on the second PF2 trial, and an aftereffect when the force field subsequently returned to its original strength. The aftereffect was abolished if the second PF2 trial was replaced by an oppositely directed velocity-dependent force field (VF). During subsequent training in the VF, immediately after having adapted to the PF, subjects applied a force that assisted the force field for approximately 15 trials, indicating that they did not use information about the force-field direction. We concluded that the CNS uses only the position error for updating the internal model of the environmental dynamics and modifying feedforward commands. Although this strategy is not necessarily optimal, it may be the most reliable strategy for iterative improvement in performance.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".