Separate motor memories are formed when controlling different implicitly specified locations on a tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skillful manipulation requires forming and recalling memories of the dynamics of objects linking applied force to motion. It has been assumed that such memories are associated with entire objects. However, we often control different locations on an object, and these locations may be associated with different dynamics. We have previously demonstrated that multiple memories can be formed when participants are explicitly instructed to control different visual points marked on an object. A key question is whether this novel finding generalizes to more natural situations in which control points are implicitly defined by the task. To answer this question, we used objects with no explicit control points and tasks designed to encourage the use of distinct implicit control points. Participants moved a handle, attached to a robotic interface, to control the position of a rectangular object ("eraser") in the horizontal plane. Participants were required to move the eraser straight ahead to wipe away a column of dots ("dust"), located to either the left or right. We found that participants adapted to opposing dynamics when linked to the left and right dust locations, even though the movements required for these two contexts were the same. Control conditions showed this learning could not be accounted for by contextual cues or the fact that the task goal required moving in a straight line. These results suggest that people naturally control different locations on manipulated objects depending on the task context and that doing so affords the formation of separate motor memories. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Skilled manipulation requires forming motor memories of object dynamics, which have been assumed to be associated with entire objects. However, we recently demonstrated that people can form multiple memories when explicitly instructed to control different visual points on an object. In this article we show that this novel finding generalizes to more natural situations in which control points are implicitly defined by the task.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".