String-pulling by the common marmoset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coordinated hand movements used to grasp and manipulate objects are crucial for many daily activities, such as tying shoelaces or opening jars. Recently, the string-pulling task – which involves cyclically reaching, grasping and pulling a string – has been used to study coordinated hand movements in rodents and humans. Here we characterize how adult common marmosets perform the string-pulling task and describe changes in performance across the lifespan. Marmosets (n=15, 7 female) performed a string-pulling task for a food reward using an instrumented apparatus attached to their home-cage. Movement kinematics were acquired using markerless video tracking and we assessed individual hand movements and bimanual coordination using standard metrics. Marmosets oriented their gaze towards the string above their hands and readily performed the task regardless of sex or age. The task required very little training and animals routinely engaged in multiple pulling trials per session despite not being under water or food control. All marmosets showed consistent pulling speed and similar hand movements regardless of age. Adult marmosets exhibited a clear hand effect, performing straighter and faster movements with their right hand despite showing idiosyncratic hand preference according to a traditional food retrieval assay. Hand effects were also evident for younger animals but seemed attenuated in the older animals. In terms of bimanual coordination, all adult marmosets demonstrated an alternating movement pattern for vertical hand positions. Two younger and two older marmosets exhibited idiosyncratic coordination patterns even after substantial experience. In general, younger and older animals exhibited higher variability in bimanual coordination than did adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".