Skilled throwers use physics to time ball release to the nearest millisecond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skilled throwers achieve accuracy in overarm throwing by releasing the ball on the handpath with a timing precision as low as 1 ms. It is generally believed that this remarkable ability results from a precisely timed command from the brain that opens the fingers. Alternatively, precise timing of ball release could result from a backforce from the ball that pushes the fingers open. The objective was to test these hypotheses in skilled throwers. Angular positions of the hand and phalanges of the middle finger were recorded with the search-coil technique. In support of the backforce hypothesis, we found that when subjects made a throwing motion without a ball in the hand (i.e., without a backforce), they could not open the fingers rapidly, and they had lost the ability to time finger opening in the 1- to 2-ms range. In addition, relationships were found between the magnitude and timing of hand angular acceleration and finger (joint) extension acceleration. The results indicate that although a central command produced initial hand opening, precise timing of ball release came from a mechanism involving Newtonian mechanics, i.e., hand acceleration produced a backforce from the ball on the fingers that pushed the fingers open. In this mechanism, given the appropriate finger force/stiffness, correction for errors in hand acceleration occurs automatically because hand motion causes finger motion. We propose that skilled throwers achieve ball accuracy by computing finger force/stiffness based on state estimation of hand acceleration and that ball inaccuracy occurs when this computation is imprecise.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".