MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proprioceptive and Visual Feedback Responses in Macaques Exploit Goal Redundancy

2022· article· en· W4311911478 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin P. Cross, Hui Guang, Stephen H. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of CanadaGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)ExploitComputer scienceProprioceptionMotor controlKinematicsPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common problem in motor control concerns how to generate patterns of muscle activity when there are redundant solutions to attain a behavioral goal. Optimal feedback control is a theory that has guided many behavioral studies exploring how the motor system incorporates task redundancy. This theory predicts that kinematic errors that deviate the limb should not be corrected if one can still attain the behavioral goal. Studies in humans demonstrate that the motor system can flexibly integrate visual and proprioceptive feedback of the limb with goal redundancy within 90 ms and 70 ms, respectively. Here, we show monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ) demonstrate similar abilities to exploit goal redundancy. We trained four male monkeys to reach for a goal that was either a narrow square or a wide, spatially redundant rectangle. Monkeys exhibited greater trial-by-trial variability when reaching to the wide goal consistent with exploiting goal redundancy. On random trials we jumped the visual feedback of the hand and found monkeys corrected for the jump when reaching to the narrow goal and largely ignored the jump when reaching for the wide goal. In a separate set of experiments, we applied mechanical loads to the arm of the monkey and found similar corrective responses based on goal shape. Muscle activity reflecting these different corrective responses were detected for the visual and mechanical perturbations starting at ∼90 and ∼70 ms, respectively. Thus, rapid motor responses in macaques can exploit goal redundancy similar to humans, creating a paradigm to study the neural basis of goal-directed motor action and motor redundancy. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Moving in the world requires selecting from an infinite set of possible motor commands. Theories predict that motor commands are selected that exploit redundancies. Corrective responses in humans to either visual or proprioceptive disturbances of the limb can rapidly exploit redundant trajectories to a goal in <100 ms after a disturbance. However, uncovering the neural correlates generating these rapid motor corrections has been hampered by the absence of an animal model. We developed a behavioral paradigm in monkeys that incorporates redundancy in the form of the shape of the goal. Critically, monkeys exhibit corrective responses and timings similar to humans performing the same task. Our paradigm provides a model for investigating the neural correlates of sophisticated rapid motor corrections.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207