Rapid prediction of biomechanical costs during action decisions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When given a choice between actions that yield the same reward, we tend to prefer the one that requires the least effort. Recent studies have shown that humans are remarkably accurate at evaluating the effort of potential reaching actions and can predict the subtle energetic demand caused by the nonisotropic biomechanical properties of the arm. In the present study, we investigated the time course over which such information is computed and comes to influence decisions. Two independent approaches were used. First, subjects performed a reach decision task in which the time interval for deciding between two candidate reaching actions was varied from 200 to 800 ms. Second, we measured motor-evoked potential (MEPs) to single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) to probe the evolving decision at different times after stimulus presentation. Both studies yielded a consistent conclusion: that a prediction of the effort associated with candidate movements is computed very quickly and influences decisions within 200 ms after presentation of the candidate actions. Furthermore, whereas the MEPs measured 150 ms after stimulus presentation were well correlated with the choices that subjects ultimately made, later in the trial the MEP amplitudes were primarily related to the muscular requirements of the chosen movement. This suggests that corticospinal excitability (CSE) initially reflects a competition between candidate actions and later changes to reflect the processes of preparing to implement the winning action choice.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
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 it