Visuomotor Adaptation Does Not Recalibrate Kinesthetic Sense of Felt Hand Path
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor control relies on multiple sources of information. To estimate the position and motion of the hand, the brain uses both vision and body-position (proprioception and kinesthesia) senses from sensors in the muscles, tendons, joints, and skin. Although performance is better when more than one sensory modality is present, visuomotor adaptation suggests that people tend to rely much more on visual information of the hand to guide their arm movements to targets, even when the visual information and kinesthetic information about the hand motion are in conflict. The aim of this study is to test whether adapting hand movements in response to false visual feedback of the hand will result in the change or recalibration of the kinesthetic sense of hand motion. The advantage of this cross-sensory recalibration would ensure on-line consistency between the senses. To test this, we mapped participants' sensitivity to tilted and curved hand paths and then examined whether adapting their hand movements in response to false visual feedback affected their felt sense of hand path. We found that participants could accurately estimate hand path directions and curvature after adapting to false visual feedback of their hand when reaching to targets. Our results suggest that although vision can override kinesthesia to recalibrate arm motor commands, it does not recalibrate the kinesthetic sense of hand path geometry.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".