Contributions of Gait and Trunk Movements to Prehension: Perspectives from World- and Body-Centered Coordinates
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
The present paper reviews a series of prehension experiments recently conducted at Simon Fraser University's Human Motor Systems Laboratory, and attempts to place them into the larger context of multi-segmental control theory. Two related lines of experiments are reported: (a) experiments involving prehension during walking, and (b) experiments involving trunk-assisted reaching. Three-dimensional analyses of movements were performed via both world- and body-centered coordinates. Our results are supportive of the idea that both types of tasks are carried out using task-specific synergies. Furthermore, we assert that the actions of these synergies are comprised of variable contributions of different movement systems and result in smooth, world-centered end-point trajectories. We show evidence that this "motor equivalence" is the result of increasing the complexity of a given task. Finally, the implications of the present findings on prevailing motor control theory are discussed in terms of the theoretical mechanisms underlying the coordination of the transport and grasp components of prehension.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it