Effects of Human Arm Impedance on Dynamics Learning and Generalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated anisotropic patterns of hand impedance under static conditions and during movement. Here we show that the pattern of kinematic error observed in studies of dynamics learning is associated with this anisotropic impedance pattern. We also show that the magnitude of kinematic error associated with this anisotropy dictates the amount of motor learning and, consequently, the extent to which dynamics learning generalizes. Subjects were trained to reach to visual targets while holding a robotic device that applied forces during movement. On infrequent trials, the load was removed and the resulting kinematic error was measured. We found a strong correlation between the pattern of kinematic error and the anisotropic pattern of hand stiffness. In a second experiment subjects were trained under force-field conditions to move in two directions: one in which the dynamic perturbation was in the direction of maximum arm impedance and the associated kinematic error was low and another in which the perturbation was in the direction of low impedance where kinematic error was high. Generalization of learning was assessed in a reference direction that lay intermediate to the two training directions. We found that transfer of learning was greater when training occurred in the direction associated with the larger kinematic error. This suggests that the anisotropic patterns of impedance and kinematic error determine the magnitude of dynamics learning and the extent to which it generalizes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".