Human Movements Are Shaped by Utilizing Sensory Information: A Stochastic Optimum Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human motor planning combines such interesting aspects as modular organization in motor primitives and characteristics of stochastic optimality. Motor primitives aided in the description of motor skill learning. In this study, for the first time, an interpretation is proposed to explain how motor primitives are shaped in a stochastic optimality process.To this end, sensory information is assumed to be random variables at each moment. Theoretically, the results confirmed that the variability of a movement increased with passing time. As a result, motor planning should be performed in shorter durations to achieve an accurate movement. It means that a task should be divided into several subtasks at various stages of time. Moreover, theoretically, the results confirmed that motor planning is statistically optimal if the movement is planned in minimum jerk space, which is in accordance with what is reported in the literature. Comparing the proposed mathematical model with the results of experimental data in two different types of motor action (i.e., arm reaching movement and sit-to-stand transfer from a chair) confirmed that the proposed model can be considered a framework to investigate the effect of bottom-up information on human motor planning level. Further experiments need to investigate it more deeply.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".