Evidence for a Proprioception-Based Rapid On-Line Error Correction Mechanism for Hand Orientation during Reaching Movements in Blind Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of visual experience to the perception and sensorimotor control of spatial orientation of the hand was investigated in blind subjects. In "orientation-matching" tasks, subjects aligned a match handle held in their right hand to a target handle held in their left hand and fixed in different orientations, with both arms outstretched. In "letter-posting" task 1, the same subjects reached out and simultaneously oriented their right hand to insert the match handle into a target slot fixed in the same range of orientations. Orientations were signaled proprioceptively by a reference handle held in the left hand. Final hand orientation errors were smaller when blind subjects simultaneously reached out and rotated their hand to insert the match handle into the target slot in letter-posting task 1 than when they held their arm extended and aligned the handles in the orientation-matching task. In letter-posting task 2, blind subjects first aligned their hand to the orientation of the target and then subsequently reached to the target with the instruction to not change hand orientation during reaching. Despite the instruction, subjects showed a reduction in absolute hand orientation error from the beginning to the end of the reach. In all tasks, performance of blind subjects was very similar to that of blindfolded normally sighted subjects. These findings provide the first evidence of an automatic on-line error-correction mechanism for hand orientation guided only by proprioceptive inputs during reaching in blind subjects, and reveal that the on-line mechanism does not depend on prior visual experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".