Representing multiple object weights: competing priors and sensorimotor memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When lifting an object, individuals scale lifting forces based on long-term priors relating external object properties (such as material and size) to object weight. When experiencing objects that are poorly predicted by priors, people rapidly form and update sensorimotor memories that can be used to predict an object's atypical size-weight relation in support of predictively scaling lift forces. With extensive experience in lifting such objects, long-term priors, assessed with weight judgments, are gradually updated. The aim of the present study was to understand the formation and updating of these memory processes. Participants lifted, over multiple days, a set of black cubes with a normal size-weight mapping and green cubes with an inverse size-weight mapping. Sensorimotor memory was assessed with lifting forces, and priors associated with the black and green cubes were assessed with the size-weight illusion (SWI). Interference was observed in terms of adaptation of the SWI, indicating that priors were not independently adjusted. Half of the participants rapidly learned to scale lift forces appropriately, whereas reduced learning was observed in the others, suggesting that individual differences may be affecting sensorimotor memory abilities. A follow-up experiment showed that lifting forces are not accurately scaled to objects when concurrently performing a visuomotor association task, suggesting that sensorimotor memory formation involves cognitive resources to instantiate the mapping between object identity and weight, potentially explaining the results of experiment 1 These results provide novel insight into the formation and updating of sensorimotor memories and provide support for the independent adjustment of sensorimotor memory and priors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".