Precision of reaches and proprioception in motor control and adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How do precision of movement and proprioception influence motor control and adaptation? Several theories—such as the exploration-exploitation hypothesis—propose that variability plays a key role in motor performance and learning. However, empirical measures of motor and proprioceptive precision are often limited by small sample sizes, and proprioceptive estimates, especially those relying on efferent signals, are difficult to isolate and quantify. In this study, we leveraged a large dataset of 270 participants—including a subsample of older adults (ages 54– 84)—to assess the precision of hand movements and proprioceptive estimates, and to examine whether these factors predict individual differences in motor learning and adaptation. We found that baseline reach variance did not predict learning or changes in hand localization. Although active hand localization (which includes efferent contributions) was slightly more precise—showing an 8.6% reduction in variance—this suggests that unseen hand estimates rely primarily on proprioception. Neither motor nor sensory precision varied with age. However, reach aftereffects were modestly associated with proprioceptive precision before training and proprioceptive recalibration after training. No other measure of learning or variance was reliably associated. These findings suggest that reach aftereffects may partly reflect changes in hand proprioception, but overall, we identified no predictors of adaptation to a rotated visual cursor.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".