Visuomotor adaptation to a visual rotation is gravity dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans perform vertical and horizontal arm motions with different temporal patterns. The specific velocity profiles are chosen by the central nervous system by integrating the gravitational force field to minimize energy expenditure. However, what happens when a visuomotor rotation is applied, so that a motion performed in the horizontal plane is perceived as vertical? We investigated the dynamic of the adaptation of the spatial and temporal properties of a pointing motion during prolonged exposure to a 90° visuomotor rotation, where a horizontal movement was associated with a vertical visual feedback. We found that participants immediately adapted the spatial parameters of motion to the conflicting visual scene in order to keep their arm trajectory straight. In contrast, the initial symmetric velocity profiles specific for a horizontal motion were progressively modified during the conflict exposure, becoming more asymmetric and similar to those appropriate for a vertical motion. Importantly, this visual effect that increased with repetitions was not followed by a consistent aftereffect when the conflicting visual feedback was absent (catch and washout trials). In a control experiment we demonstrated that an intrinsic representation of the temporal structure of perceived vertical motions could provide the error signal allowing for this progressive adaptation of motion timing. These findings suggest that gravity strongly constrains motor learning and the reweighting process between visual and proprioceptive sensory inputs, leading to the selection of a motor plan that is suboptimal in terms of energy expenditure.
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) | 0.001 | 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".