Generalization of Dynamics Learning Across Changes in Movement Amplitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on generalization show the nature of how learning is encoded in the brain. Previous studies have shown rather limited generalization of dynamics learning across changes in movement direction, a finding that is consistent with the idea that learning is primarily local. In contrast, studies show a broader pattern of generalization across changes in movement amplitude, suggesting a more general form of learning. To understand this difference, we performed an experiment in which subjects held a robotic manipulandum and made movements to targets along the body midline. Subjects were trained in a velocity-dependent force field while moving to a 15 cm target. After training, subjects were tested for generalization using movements to a 30 cm target. We used force channels in conjunction with movements to the 30 cm target to assess the extent of generalization. Force channels restricted lateral movements and allowed us to measure force production during generalization. We compared actual lateral forces to the forces expected if dynamics learning generalized fully. We found that, during the test for generalization, subjects produced reliably less force than expected. Force production was appropriate for the portion of the transfer movement in which velocities corresponded to those experienced with the 15 cm target. Subjects failed to produce the expected forces when velocities exceeded those experienced in the training task. This suggests that dynamics learning generalizes little beyond the range of one's experience. Consistent with this result, subjects who trained on the 30 cm target showed full generalization to the 15 cm target. We performed two additional experiments that show that interleaved trials to the 30 cm target during training on the 15 cm target can resolve the difference between the current results and those reported previously.
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".