Single-Trial Dynamics of Competing Reach Plans in the Human Motor Periphery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary motor control theories propose competition between multiple motor plans before the winning command is executed. While most competitions are completed before movement onset, movements are often initiated before the competition has been resolved. An example of this is saccadic averaging, wherein the eyes land at an intermediate location between two visual targets. Behavioral and neurophysiological signatures of competing motor commands have also been reported for reaching movements, but debate remains about whether such signatures attest to an unresolved competition, arise from averaging across many trials, or reflect a strategy to optimize behavior given task constraints. Here, we recorded EMG activity from an upper limb muscle (m. pectoralis) while 12 (8 female) participants performed an immediate response reach task, freely choosing between one of two identical and suddenly presented visual targets. On each trial, muscle recruitment showed two distinct phases of directionally tuned activity. In the first wave, time-locked ∼100 ms of target presentation, muscle activity was clearly influenced by the nonchosen target, reflecting a competition between reach commands that was biased in favor of the ultimately chosen target. This resulted in an initial movement intermediate between the two targets. In contrast, the second wave, time-locked to voluntary reach onset, was not biased toward the nonchosen target, showing that the competition between targets was resolved. Instead, this wave of activity compensated for the averaging induced by the first wave. Thus, single-trial analysis reveals an evolution in how the nonchosen target differentially influences the first and second wave of muscle activity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Contemporary theories of motor control suggest that multiple motor plans compete for selection before the winning command is executed. Evidence for this is found in intermediate reach movements toward two potential target locations, but recent findings have challenged this notion by arguing that intermediate reaching movements reflect an optimal response strategy. By examining upper limb muscle recruitment during a free-choice reach task, we show early recruitment of a suboptimal averaged motor command to the two targets that subsequently transitions to a single motor command that compensates for the initially averaged motor command. Recording limb muscle activity permits single-trial resolution of the dynamic influence of the nonchosen target through time.
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".