Referent control and motor equivalence of reaching from standing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor actions may result from central changes in the referent body configuration, defined as the body posture at which muscles begin to be activated or deactivated. The actual body configuration deviates from the referent configuration, particularly because of body inertia and environmental forces. Within these constraints, the system tends to minimize the difference between these configurations. For pointing movement, this strategy can be expressed as the tendency to minimize the difference between the referent trajectory (R T ) and actual trajectory (Q T ) of the effector (hand). This process may underlie motor equivalent behavior that maintains the pointing trajectory regardless of the number of body segments involved. We tested the hypothesis that the minimization process is used to produce pointing in standing subjects. With eyes closed, 10 subjects reached from a standing position to a remembered target located beyond arm length. In randomly chosen trials, hip flexion was unexpectedly prevented, forcing subjects to take a step during pointing to prevent falling. The task was repeated when subjects were instructed to intentionally take a step during pointing. In most cases, reaching accuracy and trajectory curvature were preserved due to adaptive condition-specific changes in interjoint coordination. Results suggest that referent control and the minimization process associated with it may underlie motor equivalence in pointing. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Motor actions may result from minimization of the deflection of the actual body configuration from the centrally specified referent body configuration, in the limits of neuromuscular and environmental constraints. The minimization process may maintain reaching trajectory and accuracy regardless of the number of body segments involved (motor equivalence), as confirmed in this study of reaching from standing in young healthy individuals. Results suggest that the referent control process may underlie motor equivalence in reaching.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".