Perceptual mediators of force production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therrien and colleagues (2010; 2012; 2013) observed a tendency for individuals to overproduce force in repetitive pinch grip and vocalization tasks when visual feedback is removed. Framed in models of feedforward control, these authors suggest that when visual feedback is not available, participants underestimate their self-produced force, thus leading to a systematic increase in force output. However questions remain, of both theoretical and applied relevance, as to whether this is a generalized effect or if it is present only when previously available visual feedback is removed as a repetitive task continues. From a functional perspective, for example, current ergonomic models do not consider availability of vision when acceptable force limits are being set for tasks where the hands cannot be seen. The purpose of this study therefore, is to identify whether the continuous availability of vision modulates the amount of force exerted to complete an insertion task. Participants completed a buckle-fastening task in 2 force directions (down and forward), both with and without direct vision of the task hand and the objects they were manipulating. Of particular interest was the maximum force produced as well as the total impulse of the insertion action. Results suggest that maximum pinch grip force increased by over 40% in the absence of vision (p<0.005). In addition, pinch grip impulse was 83% greater without visual feedback (p<0.001). The total force necessary to complete the insertion was significantly larger without vision, and mean insertion impulse more than doubled (p<0.001). The results of this study, suggesting that continuous vision is an important factor in attenuating force demands, provide insight into the perceptual mediators of kinetic output. They are discussed from theoretical and functional ergonomic perspectives.Acknowledgments: Automotive Partnership Canada, NSERC
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".