Vibrotactile information improves proprioceptive reaching target localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When pointing to parts of our own body (e.g., the opposite index finger), the position of the target is derived from proprioceptive signals. Consistent with the principles of multisensory integration, it has been found that participants better matched the position of their index finger when they also had visual cues about its location. Unlike vision, touch may not provide an additional information about finger position in space, since fingertip tactile information theoretically remains the same irrespective of the postural configuration of the upper limb. However, since tactile and proprioceptive information are ultimately coded within the same population of posterior parietal neurons within high-level spatial representations, we nevertheless hypothesized that additional tactile information could benefit the processing of proprioceptive signals. To investigate the influence of tactile information on proprioceptive localization, we asked 19 participants to reach with the right hand towards the opposite unseen index finger (proprioceptive target). Vibrotactile stimuli were applied to the target index finger prior to movement execution. We found that participants made smaller errors and more consistent reaches following tactile stimulation. These results demonstrate that transient touch provided at the proprioceptive target improves subsequent reaching precision and accuracy. Such improvement was not observed when tactile stimulation was delivered to a distinct body part (the shoulder). This suggests a specific spatial integration of touch and proprioception at the level of high-level cortical body representations, resulting in touch improving position sense.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".