Rapid Online Selection between Multiple Motor Plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent theories of voluntary control predict that multiple motor strategies can be precomputed and expressed throughout movement. We examined online decisional processing in humans by asking them to make reaching movements with obstacles located just to the sides of a direct path between start and end targets. On random trials, the limb was perturbed with one of four mechanical loads that varied in direction and amplitude. Notably, we observed two different strategies when we applied a perturbation (left medium-sized) that deviated the participants' hand directly toward an obstacle. In some trials, subjects directed their hand between the obstacles and in other trials to the left of the obstacles. Importantly, changes in the muscle stretch response between these two strategies were observed in <60 ms after perturbation, during the R2 long-latency epoch (~45-75 ms). As predicted, the selected strategy depended on the estimated position of the limb when it was perturbed. In our second experiment, we presented either one or three potential goal targets. Movements initially directed to the closest target could be quickly redirected to other potential targets after a perturbation. Differences in muscle stretch responses for redirected movements were observed ~75 ms after perturbation during the R3 long-latency epoch (~75-105 ms). The results show that decisional processes are rapidly implemented during movement execution. In addition, our data suggest a hierarchical process with corrective responses on "how" to attain a behavioral goal expressed during the R2 epoch and responses on "what" goal to attain during the R3 epoch.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".