MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085753055 · doi:10.1037/cep0000042

The contribution of the reach and the grasp to shaping brain and behaviour.

2014· review· en· W2085753055 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Q. Whishaw, Jenni M. Karl

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGRASPCognitionLineage (genetic)NeurosciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skilled hand use is a striking feature of human behaviour, but in contrast to the view that it recently evolved in the primate lineage, the present paper argues that skilled hand movements have an early phylogenetic origin dating back to the synergies displayed by the pectoral fins of bony fishes. Insights into the function and evolution of hand use stem from the dual visuomotor channel theory, which proposes that prehension is a composite of 2 movements, the reach and the grasp. The reach is in part an egocentric act directed toward the extrinsic (location) features of objects while the grasp is in part an allocentric act directed toward the intrinsic (shape and size) features of objects. Phylogenetic, developmental, and behavioural evidence suggest that the reach and the grasp evolved separately under somatosensory control and were subsequently coordinated with visual control in the primate lineage. Accordingly, parallel pathways from visual cortex came to influence separate reach and grasp systems in parietofrontal cortex, and new descending pathways to the spinal cord came to assist in visually guided reaching. Neural processes related to the "where" of the reach and the "what" of the grasp have had a formative role in shaping cognition more generally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207