MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Object and Task Features Influence Visual and Sensorimotor Integration in Grasping Tasks

2025· article· en· W4408890341 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. E. Abdel-Halim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Object (grammar)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionCognitive scienceCommunicationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From simple tasks like reaching for your morning cup of coffee to more complex activities like driving or playing sports, reach-to-grasp movements are integral to many daily activities. Although seemingly simple, reaching to grasp an object is a complex behavior requiring multiple sensory inputs for successful execution. This behavior can be broken down into three different phases: planning, reaching, and grasping. During the planning phase, information about the object's location and on the features of the object and task are necessary for appropriate motor planning (Betti et al., 2018; Guo and Niemeier, 2024). We process visual information on the object's features, such as its shape and size, to identify potential grasp points and estimate its weight. The task features include information on which specific effector (right hand, left hand, or both) and grasp orientation (clockwise and counterclockwise) would be used (Guo and Niemeier, 2024). In the reaching and grasping phases, the brain integrates the visual information gathered during the planning phase with motor commands, enabling precise hand movements toward the object (Klein et al., 2023). This integration of visual and motor processes is known as visuomotor computation, where the visual properties of the object are aligned with the motor actions required to execute the grasp (Klein et al., 2023). This visuomotor integration ensures the appropriate trajectory for reaching, and the correct grip and load forces are applied to successfully lift and retrieve the object (Klein et al., 2023; Guo and Niemeier, 2024). Despite the importance of visuomotor integration of both object and task features, these features are often studied in isolation. For instance, in one study, researchers focused solely on how grasp orientation and the alignment of handles on objects like beer mugs influence grasping behavior (Bub and Masson, 2010 … Correspondence should be addressed to Rana Abdelhalim at rana.abdelhalim{at}mail.mcgill.ca.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→