Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Information about another person’s movement kinematics obtained through visual observation activates brain regions involved in motor learning. Observation-related changes in these brain areas are associated with adaptive changes to feedforward neural control of muscle activation and behavioural improvements in limb movement control. However, little is known about the stability of these observation-related effects over time. Here we used force channel trials to probe changes in lateral force production at various time points (1 min, 10 min, 30 min, 60 min, 24 h) after participants either physically performed, or observed another individual performing upper limb reaching movements that were perturbed by novel, robot-generated forces (a velocity-dependent force-field). Observers learned to predictively generate directionally and temporally specific compensatory forces during reaching, consistent with the idea that they acquired an internal representation of the novel dynamics. Participants who physically practiced in the force-field showed adaptation that was detectable at all time points, with some decay detected after 24 h. Observation-related adaptation was less temporally stable in comparison, decaying slightly after 1 h and undetectable at 24 h. Observation induced less adaptation overall than physical practice, which could explain differences in temporal stability. Visually acquired representations of movement dynamics are retained and continue to influence behavior for at least one hour after observation. Significance We used force channel probes in an upper limb force-field reaching task in humans to compare the durability of learning-related changes that occured through visual observation to those after physical movement practice. Visually acquired representations of movement dynamics continued to influence behavior for at least one hour after observation. The significance of the findings is two-fold. First, they broaden our understanding of the potential role of visual observation in naturalistic motor skill acquisition. Our findings point to a (at least) 1-hour window during which visual observation of another person (e.g. a tutor or a conspecific learner) could play a role in motor learning, especially in early learning, presumably (as shown in our previous work) through activation of the neural circuitry that underlies motor skill acquisition. Second, this one-hour window represents an opportunity for observation-based interventions in neurorehabilitation (e.g. interleaving observation with physical practice) to aid in driving cortical reorganization for recovery of motor function.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".