Bimanual proprioception: are two hands better than one?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information about the position of an object that is held in both hands, such as a golf club or a tennis racquet, is transmitted to the human central nervous system from peripheral sensors in both left and right arms. How does the brain combine these two sources of information? Using a robot to move participant's passive limbs, we performed psychophysical estimates of proprioceptive function for each limb independently and again when subjects grasped the robot handle with both arms. We compared empirical estimates of bimanual proprioception to several models from the sensory integration literature: some that propose a combination of signals from the left and right arms (such as a Bayesian maximum-likelihood estimate), and some that propose using unimanual signals alone. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the nervous system both has knowledge of and uses the limb with the best proprioceptive acuity for bimanual proprioception. Surprisingly, a Bayesian model that postulates optimal combination of sensory signals could not predict empirically observed bimanual acuity. These findings suggest that while the central nervous system seems to have information about the relative sensory acuity of each limb, it uses this information in a rather rudimentary fashion, essentially ignoring information from the less reliable limb.
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 | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".