Motor learning of novel dynamics is not represented in a single global coordinate system: evaluation of mixed coordinate representations and local learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful motor performance requires the ability to adapt motor commands to task dynamics. A central question in movement neuroscience is how these dynamics are represented. Although it is widely assumed that dynamics (e.g., force fields) are represented in intrinsic, joint-based coordinates (Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. J Neurosci 14: 3208-3224, 1994), recent evidence has questioned this proposal. Here we reexamine the representation of dynamics in two experiments. By testing generalization following changes in shoulder, elbow, or wrist configurations, the first experiment tested for extrinsic, intrinsic, or object-centered representations. No single coordinate frame accounted for the pattern of generalization. Rather, generalization patterns were better accounted for by a mixture of representations or by models that assumed local learning and graded, decaying generalization. A second experiment, in which we replicated the design of an influential study that had suggested encoding in intrinsic coordinates (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994), yielded similar results. That is, we could not find evidence that dynamics are represented in a single coordinate system. Taken together, our experiments suggest that internal models do not employ a single coordinate system when generalizing and may well be represented as a mixture of coordinate systems, as a single system with local learning, or both.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".