MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569416360 · doi:10.1167/16.12.974

Proprioceptive contributions to online limb-target regulation processes?

2016· article· en· W2569416360 on OpenAlexaff
Valentin Crainic, Stephen R. Bested, John de Grosbois, Rachel Goodman, Luc Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionBicepsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual feedbackMovement (music)Upper limbPsychologyBiceps tendonMedicineComputer scienceComputer visionPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Online control processes are used during goal-directed movements to ensure that the limb reaches the target. Some of these online corrections require contrasting the position of the limb vs. the target (i.e., limb-target regulation) and have been presumed to require visual and proprioceptive inputs (Elliott et al., 2010). In the current study, we sought to investigate the importance of proprioceptive information for the implementation of online limb-target regulation processes. Methods: Thirteen participants were asked to perform rapid goal-directed reaches with tendon vibrators on the distal biceps and triceps brachii tendons and while wearing liquid-crystal goggles. Trials began with participants fixating to the start position. Then, the target appeared (30 cm amplitude) which prompted participants to initiate a saccade and a reaching movement. After that, the goggles were occluded. Then, on one third of the trials, the location of the target was shifted 3 cm closer to the participant. Before achieving peak limb velocity, participants were provided with a brief visual window (20ms), to see the original or jumped target (and their hand). On separate blocks of trials, tendon vibration was applied between trials to both the biceps and triceps, to decrease the sensitivity of the muscle spindles (Ribot-Ciscar et al., 1998). Results: Tendon vibration led to shorter movement times, which were explained by shorter limb deceleration phase durations. In contrast, seeing the jumped target location for 20 ms always led to a shift in the endpoint distributions (4.7 mm), as compared to when the original target was seen during the brief window regardless of the presence of vibration. Conclusion: While the proprioceptive perturbation did influence the motor performance, the limb-target regulation processes associated with the target jump did not significantly differ across tendon vibration conditions. Altogether, online limb-target regulation processes are predominantly visuomotor in nature. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207