Author response: Future movement plans interact in sequential arm movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real world actions often comprise of a series of movements that cannot be entirely planned before initiation. When these actions are executed rapidly, the planning of multiple future movements needs to occur simultaneously with the ongoing action. How the brain solves this task remains unknown. Here we address this question with a new sequential arm reaching paradigm that manipulates how many future reaches are available for planning while controlling execution of the ongoing reach. We show that participants plan at least two future reaches simultaneously with an ongoing reach. Further, the planning processes of the two future reaches are not independent of one another. Evidence that the planning processes interact is two-fold. First, correcting for a visual perturbation of the ongoing reach target is slower when more future reaches are planned. Second, the curvature of the current reach is modified based on the next reach only when their planning processes temporally overlap. These interactions between future planning processes may enable smooth production of sequential actions by linking individual segments of a long sequence at the level of motor planning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.203 | 0.074 |
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".