Motor strategies and adiabatic invariants: The case of rhythmic motion in parabolic flights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of gravity in human motor control is at the same time obvious and difficult to isolate. It can be assessed by performing experiments in variable gravity. We propose that adiabatic invariant theory may be used to reveal nearly conserved quantities in human voluntary rhythmic motion, an individual being seen as a complex time-dependent dynamical system with bounded motion in phase space. We study an explicit realization of our proposal: An experiment in which we asked participants to perform ∞- shaped motion of their right arm during a parabolic flight, either at self-selected pace or at a metronome's given pace. Gravity varied between 0 and 1.8 g during a parabola. We compute the adiabatic invariants in the participant's frontal plane assuming a separable dynamics. It appears that the adiabatic invariant in vertical direction increases linearly with g, in agreement with our model. Differences between the free and metronome-driven conditions show that participants' adaptation to variable gravity is maximal without constraint. Furthermore, motion in the participant's transverse plane induces trajectories that may be linked to higher-derivative dynamics. Our results show that adiabatic invariants are relevant quantities to show the changes in motor strategy in time-dependent environments.
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".