MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015432625 · doi:10.1152/jn.00249.2002

Importance of Cutaneous Feedback in Maintaining a Secure Grip During Manipulation of Hand-Held Objects

2003· article· en· W2015432625 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex fingerSensationThumbHand strengthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWristPsychologyTonic (physiology)Lift (data mining)Grip strengthSimulationMedicineAnatomyPhysical therapyComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has shown that grip and load forces are modulated simultaneously during manipulation of a hand-held object. This close temporal coupling suggested that both forces are controlled by an internal model within the CNS that predicts the changes in tangential force on the fingers. The objective of the present study was to examine how the internal model would compensate for the loss of cutaneous sensation through local anesthesia of the index and thumb. Ten healthy adult subjects (5 men and 5 women aged 20-57 yr) were asked to grasp, lift, and hold stationary, a 250 g object for 20 s. Next, the subjects were asked to perform vertical oscillatory movements over a distance of 20 cm at a rate of 1.0 Hz for 30 s. Eleven trials were performed with intact sensation, and 11 trials after a local ring-block anesthesia of the index and thumb with bupivacain (5 mg/ml). During static holding, loss of cutaneous sensation produced a significant increase in the safety margin. However, the grip force declined significantly over the 20-s static hold period. During oscillatory arm movements, grip and load forces were continuously modulated together in a predictive manner as suggested by Flanagan and Wing. Again, the grip force declined over the 30-s movement, and 7/10 subjects dropped the object at least once. With intact sensation, the object was never dropped; but with the fingers anesthetized, it was dropped on 36% of the trials, and a significant slip occurred on a further 12%. The mean correlation between the grip and load forces for all subjects deteriorated from 0.71 with intact sensation to 0.48 after digital anesthesia. However, a cross-correlation calculated between the grip and load forces indicated that the phase lag was approximately zero both with and without digital anesthesia. Taken together, the data from the present study suggest that cutaneous afferents are required for setting and maintaining the background level of the grip force in addition to their phasic slip-detection function and their role in adapting the grip force/load force ratio to the friction on initial contact with an object. Finally, at a more theoretical level, they correct and maintain an internal model of the physical properties of hand-held objects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it