Feedforward and feedback control share an internal model of the arm’s dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Humans have a remarkable capacity to learn novel movement patterns in a wide variety of contexts. Recent work has shown that, when countering external forces, the nervous system adjusts not only voluntary (ie. feedforward) control but also reflex (ie. feedback) responses. Here we show that directly altering the physical properties of the arm (i.e. intersegmental dynamics) causes the nervous system to adjust feedforward control and that this learning also transfers to feedback responses even though they were never directly trained. In our first experiment, we altered intersegmental dynamics by asking participants to generate pure elbow movements with the shoulder joint either free to rotate or locked. Locking the shoulder joint cancels the interaction forces that arise at the shoulder during forearm rotation and thus removes the need to activate shoulder muscles to prevent shoulder joint rotation. We first asked whether the nervous system learns this altered mapping of intersegmental dynamics. In the baseline phase, we found robust activation of shoulder flexor muscles for pure elbow flexion trials prior to movement onset – as required to counter the intersegmental dynamics. After locking the shoulder joint in the adaptation phase, we found a substantial reduction in shoulder muscle activity over many trials. After unlocking the shoulder joint in the post-adaptation phase, we observed after-effects, as participants made systematic hand path errors. In our second experiment, we investigated whether such learning transfers to feedback control. Mechanical perturbations applied to the limb in the baseline phase revealed that feedback responses, like feedforward control, also appropriately countered intersegmental dynamics. In the adaptation phase, we found a substantial reduction in shoulder feedback responses – as appropriate for the altered intersegmental dynamics. We also found that this decay in shoulder feedback responses correlated across subjects with the amount of decay during feedforward control. Our work adds to the growing evidence that feedforward and feedback control 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".