Infinite horizon control captures modulation of movement duration in reaching movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Movement duration, a fundamental aspect of motor control, is often viewed as a pre-programmed parameter requiring dedicated selection mechanisms. An alternative view posits that movement duration emerges from the control policy itself. Here, we demonstrate, using infinite horizon optimal feedback control (IHOFC) and nonlinear limb dynamics that this alternative hypothesis successfully captures diverse aspects of human reaching behavior, including tradeoffs between movement duration and task parameters. Specifically, we reproduced the modulation of movement duration with varying reach distances and accuracy (Fitts’ law), and extended the infinite horizon framework to include the effect of rewards and biomechanical costs. Furthermore, our model also featured a temporal evolution of feedback responses to perturbations that resembles experimental observations, and naturally accounted for motor decisions observed when participants select one among multiple goals in dynamic environments. Together, these developments show that in many cases, movement duration may not need to be specified a priori, but instead could result from task-dependent control policies. This framework validates a candidate explanation for varied movement durations, which invites to reconsider the nature and strength of evidence for the finite horizon formulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".