Guided by touch: Tactile Cues in Hand Movement Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditionally, touch is associated with exteroception and is rarely considered a relevant sensory cue for controlling movements in space, unlike vision. We developed a technique to isolate and evaluate tactile involvement in controlling sliding finger movements over a surface. Young adults traced a 2D shape with their index finger under direct or mirror-reversed visual feedback to create a conflict between visual and somatosensory inputs. In this context, increased reliance on somatosensory input compromises movement accuracy. Based on the hypothesis that tactile cues contribute to guiding hand movements, we predicted poorer performance when the participants traced with their bare finger compared to when their tactile sensation was dampened using a smooth finger splint. The results supported this prediction. EEG source analyses revealed smaller current in the presumed somatosensory cortex during sensory conflict, but only when the finger directly touched the surface. This finding suggests the gating of task-irrelevant somatosensory inputs. Together, our results emphasize touch’s involvement in movement control, challenging the notion that vision predominantly governs goal-directed hand or finger movements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".