Control of Hand Impedance Under Static Conditions and During Reaching Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that humans can modify the impedance of the musculoskeletal periphery, but the extent of this modification is uncertain. Previous studies on impedance control under static conditions indicate a limited ability to modify impedance, whereas studies of impedance control during reaching in unstable environments suggest a greater range of impedance modification. As a first step in accounting for this difference, we quantified the extent to which stiffness changes from posture to movement even when there are no destabilizing forces. Hand stiffness was estimated under static conditions and at the same position during both longitudinal (near to far) and lateral movements using a position-servo technique. A new method was developed to predict the hand "reference" trajectory for purposes of estimating stiffness. For movements in a longitudinal direction, there was considerable counterclockwise rotation of the hand stiffness ellipse relative to stiffness under static conditions. In contrast, a small counterclockwise rotation was observed during lateral movement. In the modeling studies, even when we used the same modeled cocontraction level during posture and movement, we found that there was a substantial difference in the orientation of the stiffness ellipse, comparable with that observed empirically. Indeed, the main determinant of the orientation of the ellipse in our modeling studies was the movement direction and the muscle activation associated with movement. Changes in the cocontraction level and the balance of cocontraction had smaller effects. Thus even when there is no environmental instability, the orientation of stiffness ellipse changes during movement in a manner that varies with movement direction.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".