Kinesthetic illusions induced by muscle tendon vibration: The orientation of the vibration motor as a new methodological factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/AIM: To investigate the impact of changing the rotational orientation of the vibrating motor on kinesthestic illusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals received vibration over the wrist flexor muscles of dominant and non-dominant sides (80 Hz, 1 mm, 10 seconds) using four conditions (3 trials/conditions) defined by the rotational direction of the vibrator's eccentric rotating mass according to the anatomical position: (1) proximodistal, (2) distoproximal, (3) mediolateral and (4) lateromedial. Non-parametric statistical analyses were used to compare illusion characteristics across conditions. RESULTS: Lateromedial rotation created illusions that were more often in unexpected directions compared to the other rotational orientations. Distoproximal rotation was more likely to evoke kinesthetic illusions of wrist extension (76.8%) compared to lateromedial rotation (57.7%; p = 0.009). The latter led more frequently to complex/combined movement illusions (26.1%) especially with an ulnar deviation component (17.7%) compared to the other rotational directions. CONCLUSION: Results from the present study demonstrated that the rotational orientation can influence illusory perceptions, but not to a great extent. Distoproximal rotation was more effective to elicit the expected illusions of wrist extension, compared to the lateromedial orientation that more often caused complex and variable perceptions of movement. Distoproximal rotation should thus be preferred if clear and reproducible perceptions are required and lateromedial might serve as a way of creating illusions more akin to everyday functional movements. Although the exact underlying mechanisms remain unclear, our work raises awareness on the importance of gaining a better understanding and control over methodological factors that could affect kinesthetic illusions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".