Adaptation of the gain of the corrective lifting response in object manipulation transfers across the hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our ability to skillfully manipulate objects is supported by rapid corrective responses that are initiated when we experience perturbations that interfere with movement goals. For example, the corrective lifting response is triggered when an object is heavier than expected and fails to lift off the surface. In this situation, the absence of expected sensory feedback signalling lift off initiates, within ~ 90 ms, an increase in lifting force. Importantly, when people repeatedly lift an object that, on occasional catch trials, is heavier than expected, the gain of the corrective response, defined as the rate of force increase, adapts to the 'catch' weight. In the present study, we investigated whether this response adaption transfers intermanually. In the training phase, participants used either their left or right hand (counterbalanced) to repeatedly lift a 3 N object that unexpectedly increased to 9 N on catch trials, leading to an increase in the gain of the lifting response across catch trials. Participants then lifted the object with their other hand. On the first catch trial, the gain remained elevated and thus transferred across the hands. This finding suggests that the history of lifts performed by one hand updates the corrective responses for both hands.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".