The modulatory influence of end-point controllability on decisions between actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has shown that human subjects are able to predict the biomechanical ease of potential reaching movements and use these predictions to influence their choices. Here, we examined how reach decisions are influenced by specific biomechanical factors related to the control of end-point stability, such as aiming accuracy or stopping control. Human subjects made free choices between two potential reaching movements that varied in terms of path distance and biomechanical cost in four separate blocks that additionally varied two constraints: the width of the targets (narrow or wide) and the requirement of stopping in them. When movements were unconstrained (very wide targets and no requirement of stopping), subjects' choices were strongly biased toward directions aligned with the direction of maximal mobility. However, as the movements became progressively constrained, factors related to the control of the end point gained relevance, thus reducing this bias. This demonstrates that, before movement onset, constraints such as stopping and aiming participate in a remarkably adaptive and flexible action selection process that trades off the advantage of moving along directions of maximal mobility for unconstrained movements against exploiting biomechanical anisotropies to facilitate control of end-point stability whenever the movement constraints require it. These results support a view of decision making between motor actions as a highly context-dependent gradual process in which the subjective desirability of potential actions is influenced by their dynamic properties in relation to the intrinsic properties of the motor apparatus.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".