MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2951902288

Reach adaptation precedes proprioceptive recalibration

2014· article· en· W2951902288 on OpenAlexaff
Basel Zbib, Jesse N Lombardo, Erin K. Cressman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionHand positionVisual feedbackAdaptation (eye)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCursor (databases)CommunicationComputer scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When subjects are presented with altered visual feedback of their hand during a goal-directed movement (i.e. subjects view a cursor representing their hand that is shifted from their hand’s actual position while reaching in a virtual reality environment), they typically adapt their movements so that the cursor is brought to the target, thus reducing reaching errors (i.e. reach adaptation). In addition to reach adaptation, it has recently been shown that reaching with altered visual feedback of the hand results in changes in felt hand position, such that proprioceptive estimates of hand position are shifted in the direction of the visual feedback provided (Cressman and Henriques, 2009).  In order to examine the relationship between reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration, the current experiment investigated the time-course of reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration in response to reaching with altered visual feedback of the hand. Specifically, subjects trained to reach to a single visual target while seeing a cursor that was aligned with the actual position of their hand (50 trials: aligned reach training), or while seeing a cursor that was rotated 30° clockwise (CW) relative to their hand (150 trials: rotated reach training). Reach errors and proprioceptive sense of felt hand position were assessed following the aligned reach training trials and at 7 different times during the rotated reach training trials, by having subjects reach to the target without visual feedback and provide estimates of their hand relative to a visual reference marker respectively. Results revealed an increase in reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration over the course of reach training with a rotated cursor relative to the aligned reach training. Moreover, results showed a much earlier and steeper increase in reach adaptation, as compared to proprioceptive recalibration. These findings suggest that reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration arise due to separate mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→