Extending Energy Optimization in Goal-Directed Aiming from Movement Kinematics to Joint Angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy optimization in goal-directed aiming has been demonstrated as an undershoot bias in primary movement endpoint locations, especially in conditions where corrections to target overshoots must be made against gravity. Two-component models of upper limb movement have not yet considered how joint angles are organized to deal with the energy constraints associated with moving the upper limb in goal-directed aiming tasks. To address this limitation, participants performed aiming movements to targets in the up and down directions with the index finger and two types of rod extensions attached to the index finger. The rod extensions were expected to invoke different energy optimizing strategies in the up and down directions by allowing the distal joints the opportunity to contribute to end effector displacement. Primary movements undershot the farthest target to a greater extent in the downward direction compared to the upward direction, showing that movement kinematics optimize energy expenditure in consideration of the effects of gravity. As rod length increased, shoulder elevation was optimized in movements to the far-up target and elbow flexion was optimally minimized in movements to the far-down target. The results suggest energy optimization in the control of joint angles independent of the force of gravity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".