MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108918078 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.25.397992

Cutting through the noise: reducing bias in motor adaptation analysis

2020· preprint· en· W3108918078 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Blustein, Ahmed W. Shehata, Erin S. Kuylenstierna, Kevin Englehart, Jonathon W. Sensinger

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsNoise (video)Adaptation (eye)CounterintuitiveComputer scienceWeightingPerturbation (astronomy)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During goal-directed movements, the magnitude of error correction by a person on a subsequent movement provides important insight into a person’s motor learning dynamics. Observed differences in trial-by-trial adaptation rates might indicate different relative weighting placed on the various sources of information that inform a movement, e.g. sensory feedback, control predictions, or internal model expectations. Measuring this trial-by-trial adaptation rate is not straightforward, however, since externally observed data are masked by noise from several sources and influenced by inaccessible internal processes. Adaptation to perturbation has been used to measure error adaptation as the introduced external disturbance is sufficiently large to overshadow other noise sources. However, perturbation analysis is difficult to implement in real-world scenarios, requires a large number of movement trials to accommodate infrequent perturbations, and the paradigm itself might affect the movement dynamics being observed. Here we focus on error adaptation during unperturbed and naturalistic movements. With increasing motor noise, the conventional estimation of trial-by-trial adaptation increases, a counterintuitive finding that is the consequence of systematic bias in the estimate due to noise masking the learner’s intention. We present an analytic solution relying on stochastic signal processing to reduce this effect of noise, producing an estimate of motor adaptation with reduced bias. The result is an improved estimate of trial-by-trial adaptation in a human learner compared to conventional methods. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method in analyzing simulated and empirical movement data under different noise conditions. The analytic approach is applicable across different types of movements in varied contexts and should replace the regression analysis method in future motor analysis studies. Author Summary When a person makes a movement, a motor error is typically observed that then drives motor planning corrections on subsequent movements. This error correction provides insight into how the nervous system is operating, particularly in regard to how much confidence a person places in different sources of information such as sensory feedback or motor command reproducibility. Traditional analysis of movement has required carefully controlled laboratory conditions, limiting the usefulness of motor analysis in clinical and everyday environments. Here we present a new computational method that can be accurately applied to typical movements. Counterintuitive findings of the established approach are corrected by the proposed method. This method will provide a common framework for researchers to analyze movements while extending dynamic motor adaptation analysis capabilities to clinical and non-laboratory settings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→