The Case for an Internal Dynamics Model <i>versus</i> Equilibrium Point Control in Human Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The equilibrium point hypothesis (EPH) was conceived as a means whereby the central nervous system could control limb movements by a relatively simple shift in equilibrium position without the need to explicitly compensate for task dynamics. Many recent studies have questioned this view with results that suggest the formation of an internal dynamics model of the specific task. However, supporters of the EPH have argued that these results are not incompatible with the EPH and that there is no reason to abandon it. In this study, we have tested one of the fundamental predictions of the EPH, namely, equifinality. Subjects learned to perform goal-directed wrist flexion movements while a motor provided assistance in proportion to the instantaneous velocity. It was found that the subjects stopped short of the target on the trials where the magnitude of the assistance was randomly decreased, compared to the preceding control trials (P = 0.003), i.e. equifinality was not achieved. This is contrary to the EPH, which predicts that final position should not be affected by external loads that depend purely on velocity. However, such effects are entirely consistent with predictions based on the formation of an internal dynamics model.
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 | 0.001 | 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".