Voluntary modification of rapid tactile-motor responses during reaching differs from its visuo-motor counterpart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People commonly hold and manipulate a variety of objects in everyday life, and these objects have different physical properties. In order to successfully control this wide range of objects, people must associate new patterns of tactile stimuli with appropriate motor outputs. We performed a series of experiments investigating the extent to which people can voluntarily modify tactile-motor associations in the context of a rapid tactile-motor response guiding the hand to a moving target (previously described in Pruszynski et al. 2016) by using an anti-reach paradigm in which participants were instructed to move their hands in the opposite direction of a target jump. We compared performance to that observed when people make visually guided reaches to a moving target (cf. Day & Lyon 2000, Pisella et al. 2000). When participants had visual feedback, motor responses during the anti-reach task showed early automatic responses toward the moving target before voluntary modification to move in the instructed direction. When the same participants had only tactile feedback, however, they were able to suppress this early phase of the motor response, which occurs less than 100 ms after the target jump. Our results indicate that, while the tactile motor and visual motor systems both support rapid responses that appear similar under some conditions, these responses show sharp distinctions in terms of their malleability.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".