Production and perception of grip force without proprioception: is there a sense of effort in deafferented subjects?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the ability of healthy subjects (n = 7) and a patient deprived of proprioception (GL) to produce and assess different levels of isometric forces. They first produced a target force with one hand (the reference control hand) and then, after a delay of 3 s, they attempted to match it with the other hand (the experimental matching hand). Despite abnormal variations in motor outputs, we found that GL could, as could the control subjects, maintain a constant relationship between the force exerted by the control hand and the force exerted by the experimental hand. As GL was deprived of proprioceptive cues, these results suggest that she indirectly perceived muscular force through central effort. Interestingly, when carrying out the task the patient reported neither feelings of fatigue nor awareness of how hard she tried to perform the matches. Hence, under certain circumstances (such as in our motor task), it seems possible to assess and scale muscular force on the basis of endogenous signals only. However, internally generated signals related to the size of the motor command may need to interact with afferent input to gain full access to consciousness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".