Observed effector-independent motor learning by observing
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
A compelling idea in cognitive neuroscience links motor control and action observation. Recent work supports the idea that a link exists not just between action observation and action planning, but between observation and motor learning. Several studies support the idea that cortical regions that underlie active motor learning also play a role in motor learning by observing. The goal of the present study was to test whether motor learning by observing is effector dependent (as in active motor learning) or effector independent (as in studies of action observation and mirror neurons). Right-handed human subjects observed a video depicting another individual learning to reach to visual targets in a force field (FF). The video showed reaching in a clockwise FF (CWFF) or a counter-clockwise FF (CCWFF), and depicted an individual reaching with the right or left arm. After observation, all subjects were asked to reach in a CWFF, using their right arm. As in our prior studies, subjects who observed a CWFF prior to the CWFF test performed better than subjects who observed a CCWFF. We show here that this effect was seen both when observers watched others reach using their right arm, and when observers watched others learning to reach using the left arm. These results suggest that information about novel forces learned through observation is represented in an effector-independent coordinate frame, and are consistent with the idea that the brain links not only observation and movement, but motor learning as well, through abstract representations of actions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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