Feedforward and Feedback Control Share an Internal Model of the Arm's Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has shown that, when countering external forces, the nervous system adjusts not only predictive (i.e., feedforward) control of reaching but also reflex (i.e., feedback) responses to mechanical perturbations. Here we show that altering the physical properties of the arm (i.e., intersegmental dynamics) causes the nervous system to adjust feedforward control and that this learning transfers to feedback responses even though the latter were never directly trained. Forty-five human participants (30 females) performed a single-joint elbow reaching task and countered mechanical perturbations that created pure elbow motion. In our first experiment, we altered intersegmental dynamics by asking participants to generate pure elbow movements when the shoulder joint was either free to rotate or locked by the robotic manipulandum. With the shoulder unlocked, we found robust activation of shoulder flexor muscles for pure elbow flexion trials, as required to counter the interaction torques that arise at the shoulder because of forearm rotation. After locking the shoulder joint, which cancels these interaction torques, we found a substantial reduction in shoulder muscle activity over many trials. In our second experiment, we tested whether such learning transfers to feedback control. Mechanical perturbations applied to the arm with the shoulder unlocked revealed that feedback responses also account for intersegmental dynamics. After locking the shoulder joint, we found a substantial reduction in shoulder feedback responses, as appropriate for the altered intersegmental dynamics. Our work suggests that feedforward and feedback control share an internal model of the arm's dynamics. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Here we show that altering the physical properties of the arm causes people to learn new motor commands and that this learning transfers to their reflex responses to unexpected mechanical perturbations, even though the reflex responses were never directly trained. Our results suggest that feedforward motor commands and reflex responses share an internal model of the arm's dynamics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".