Increased muscle coactivation is linked with fast feedback control when reaching in unpredictable visual environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans encounter unpredictable disturbances in daily activities and sports. When encountering unpredictable physical disturbances, healthy participants increase the peak velocity of their reaching movements, muscle coactivation, and responses to sensory feedback. Emerging evidence suggests that muscle coactivation may facilitate responses to sensory feedback and may not solely increase stiffness to resist displacements. We tested this idea by examining how healthy participants alter the control of reaching movements and responses to sensory feedback when encountering variable visuomotor rotations. The rotations changed amplitude and direction between movements, creating unpredictable errors that required fast online corrections. Participants increased the peak velocity of their movements, muscle coactivation, and responses to visual and proprioceptive feedback with the variability of the visuomotor rotations. The findings highlight an increase in neural responsiveness to sensory feedback and suggest that muscle coactivation may prime the nervous system for fast responses to sensory feedback that accommodate properties of unpredictable visual environments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".