The destination defines the journey: an examination of the kinematics of hand-to-mouth movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-train electrical stimulation of the motor and premotor cortices of nonhuman primates can produce either hand-to-mouth or grasp-to-inspect movements, depending on the precise location of stimulation. Furthermore, single-neuron recording studies identify discrete neuronal populations in the inferior parietal and ventral premotor cortices that respond uniquely to either grasp-to-eat or grasp-to-place movements, despite their identical mechanistic requirements. These studies demonstrate that the macaque motor cortex is organized around producing functional, goal-oriented movements, rather than simply fulfilling muscular prerequisites of action. In humans, right-handed hand-to-mouth movements have a unique kinematic signature; smaller maximum grip apertures are produced when grasping to eat than when grasping to place identical targets. This is evidence that the motor cortex in humans is also organized around producing functional movements. However, in both macaques and humans, grasp-to-eat/hand-to-mouth movements have always been elicited using edible targets and have (necessarily) been paired with mouth movement. It is therefore unknown whether the kinematic distinction is a natural result of grasping food and/or is simply attributable to concurrent opening of the mouth while grasping. In experiment 1, we used goal-differentiated grasping tasks, directed toward edible and inedible targets, to show that the unique kinematic signature is present even with inedible targets. In experiment 2, we used the same goal-differentiated grasping tasks, either coupled with or divorced from an open-mouth movement, to show that the signature is not attributable merely to a planned opening of the mouth during the grasp. These results are discussed in relation to the role of hand-to-mouth movements in human development, independently of grasp-to-eat behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".