Proprioceptive Acuity Assessment Via Joint Position Matching: From Basic Science to General Practice
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
Over the past several decades, studies of use-dependent plasticity have demonstrated a critical role for proprioceptive feedback in the reorganization, and subsequent recovery, of neuromotor systems. As such, an increasing emphasis has been placed on tests of proprioceptive acuity in both the clinic and the laboratory. One test that has garnered particular interest is joint position matching, whereby individuals must replicate a reference joint angle in the absence of vision (ie, using proprioceptive information). On the surface, this test might seem straightforward in nature. However, the present perspective article informs therapists and researchers alike of multiple insights gained from a recent series of position matching studies by the author and colleagues. In particular, 5 factors are outlined that can assist clinicians in developing well-informed opinions regarding the outcomes of tests of position matching abilities. This information should allow for enhanced diagnosis of proprioceptive deficits within clinical settings in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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