Acquiring a Novel Coordination Skill without Practicing the Correct Motor Commands
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
There is evidence that experience of the sensory consequences, in the absence of practice of the required motor commands, is sufficient to learn new bimanual coordination patterns. This was shown through improvements of an incongruent group who practiced a desired 30 degrees phase offset between the limbs while 1 limb was weighted such that the desired phase relation was achieved when synchronous motor commands were sent to the limbs (P. Atchy-Delama, P. G. Zanone, C. E. Peper, & P. J. Beek, 2005). In addition to testing a similar incongruent and congruent group (i.e., no weight), the authors extended this experiment by removing visual feedback during practice and by including an auditory modeling and passive guidance group. All groups showed improvement, except for the modeling group. The passive guidance group made more errors in posttests than the congruent and incongruent groups. Only the congruent group increased the amount of time around 30 degrees after practice. Active experience of the sensory consequences combined with practice sending appropriate motor commands is the most effective method for learning, even though strategic improvements can be attained without experience of the latter.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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