Involuntary feedback responses reflect a representation of partner actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have a remarkable ability to seamlessly and rapidly coordinate actions with others, from double dutch to dancing. Humans use high-level partner representations to jointly control voluntary actions, while other work shows lower-level involuntary feedback responses to sudden visual perturbations. Yet, it is unknown if a high-level partner representation can be rapidly expressed through lower-level involuntary sensorimotor circuitry. Here we test the idea that a partner representation influences involuntary visuomotor feedback responses during a cooperative sensorimotor task. Using two experiments and dynamic game theory predictions, we show that involuntary visuomotor feedback responses reflect a partner representation and consideration of a partner’s movement cost (i.e., accuracy and energy). Collectively, our results suggest there is top-down modulation from high-level partner representations to lower-level sensorimotor circuits, enabling fast and flexible feedback responses during jointly coordinated actions. Significance Statement Humans have an adept ability to rapidly coordinate their movements with others. Yet it is unknown how fast the sensorimotor system can use a representation of others to jointly control movement. Remarkably, ‘intelligent reflexes’ (i.e., involuntary visuomotor feedback responses) consider high-level partner representations within 180 - 230 ms. Further, these involuntary visuomotor feedback responses show that the sensorimotor system is willing sacrifice energy to help a partner.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".