MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2596306418

Using altered proprioceptive sensation and online vision occlusion to assess multisensory control mechanisms

2014· article· en· W2596306418 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Goodman, Luc Tremblay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKinematicsPsychologySensationIllusionAudiologyCommunicationMedicinePhysicsCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that vision is particularly important to plan the amplitude of voluntary upper-limb reaches while proprioception is important for the online control (e.g., Bagesteiro et al., 2006). One possible concern with such research is the use of a visual-proprioceptive mismatch to assess proprioceptive feedback contributions. In order to assess the relative use of visual and proprioceptive feedback during the control of action, vision occlusion and tendon vibration were employed. Participants (n=15) performed a simple voluntary reaching task (30 cm). Liquid-crystal goggles were used to manipulate vision between movement onset and offset. The biceps and triceps muscles’ distal tendons were simultaneously vibrated between trials only, which yields decreased proprioceptive sensation, even when the vibration is stopped. Right index finger trajectories were recorded to obtain movement kinematics and endpoint performance. Movement times were longer with online vision while longer times after peak velocity were observed with online vision and without tendon vibration. Both manipulations significantly influenced endpoint bias, in both the amplitude and direction axes of the movement. Vision withdrawal yielded larger endpoint distributions in both axes while tendon vibration significantly influenced endpoint variability only in the amplitude axis. A 2 vision (full, none) by 2 vibration (on, off) by 4 movement time proportion (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) ANOVA of the standard deviation of the finger position in the amplitude axis only revealed a main effect of vibration. For the same ANOVA employed with the direction axis, vision did yield a significant main effect while a proportion by vibration interaction revealed more trajectory variability with vibration at 75% of movement time. Overall, the results indicate that vision is relatively more important than proprioception to control trajectories in the amplitude movement axis while both modalities are important to control trajectories the direction of the movement.Acknowledgments: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC); Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI); Ontario Research Fund (ORF); Perceptual Motor Behaviour Laboratory

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→