Phase-Dependent Visual and Sensorimotor Integration of Features for Grasp Computations before and after Effector Specification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simple act of viewing and grasping an object involves complex sensorimotor control mechanisms that have been shown to vary as a function of multiple object and other task features such as object size, shape, weight, and wrist orientation. However, these features have been mostly studied in isolation. In contrast, given the nonlinearity of motor control, its computations require multiple features to be incorporated concurrently. Therefore, the present study tested the hypothesis that grasp computations integrate multiple task features superadditively in particular when these features are relevant for the same action phase. We asked male and female human participants to reach-to-grasp objects of different shapes and sizes with different wrist orientations. Also, we delayed the movement onset using auditory signals to specify which effector to use. Using electroencephalography and representative dissimilarity analysis to map the time course of cortical activity, we found that grasp computations formed superadditive integrated representations of grasp features during different planning phases of grasping. Shape-by-size representations and size-by-orientation representations occurred before and after effector specification, respectively, and could not be explained by single-feature models. These observations are consistent with the brain performing different preparatory, phase-specific computations; visual object analysis to identify grasp points at abstract visual levels; and downstream sensorimotor preparatory computations for reach-to-grasp trajectories. Our results suggest the brain adheres to the needs of nonlinear motor control for integration. Furthermore, they show that examining the superadditive influence of integrated representations can serve as a novel lens to map the computations underlying sensorimotor control.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".