The Structure and Acquisition of Sensorimotor Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the puzzles of learning to talk or play a musical instrument is how we learn which movement produces a particular sound: an audiomotor map. Existing research has used mappings that are already well learned such as controlling a cursor using a computer mouse. By contrast, the acquisition of novel sensorimotor maps was studied by having participants learn arm movements to auditory targets. These sounds did not come from different directions but, like speech, were only distinguished by their frequencies. It is shown that learning involves forming not one but two maps: a point map connecting sensory targets with motor commands and an error map linking sensory errors to motor corrections. Learning a point map is possible even when targets never repeat. Thus, although participants make errors, there is no opportunity to correct them because the target is different on every trial, and therefore learning cannot be driven by error correction. Furthermore, when the opportunity for error correction is provided, it is seen that acquiring error correction is itself a learning process that changes over time and results in an error map. In principle, the error map could be derived from the point map, but instead, these two maps are independently acquired and jointly enable sensorimotor control and learning. A computational model shows that this dual encoding is optimal and simulations based on this architecture predict that learning the two maps results in performance improvements comparable with those observed empirically.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".