Case Studies in Neuroscience: The central and somatosensory contributions to finger interdependence and coordination: lessons from a study of a “deafferented person”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested finger force interdependence and multifinger force-stabilizing synergies in a patient with large-fiber peripheral neuropathy (“deafferented person”). The subject performed a range of tasks involving accurate force production with one finger and with four fingers. In one-finger tasks, nontask fingers showed unintentional force production (enslaving) with an atypical pattern: very large indices for the lateral (index and little) fingers and relatively small indices for the central (middle and ring) fingers. Indices of multifinger synergies stabilizing total force and of anticipatory synergy adjustments in preparation to quick force pulses were similar to those in age-matched control females. During constant force production, removing visual feedback led to a slow force drift to lower values (by ~25% over 15 s). The results support the idea of a neural origin of enslaving and suggest that the patterns observed in the deafferented person were reorganized based on everyday manipulation tasks. The lack of significant changes in the synergy index shows that synergic control can be organized in the absence of somatosensory feedback. We discuss the control of the hand in deafferented persons within the α-model of the equilibrium-point hypothesis and suggest that force drift results from an unintentional drift of the control variables to muscles toward zero values. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrate atypical patterns of finger enslaving and unchanged force-stabilizing synergies in a person with large-fiber peripheral neuropathy. The results speak strongly in favor of central origin of enslaving and its reorganization based on everyday manipulation tasks. The data show that synergic control can be implemented in the absence of somatosensory feedback. We discuss the control of the hand in deafferented persons within the α-model of the equilibrium-point hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".